ABAKADA G.R. No.

Guro 168056

Party

List September

vs. 1,

Ermita 2005

FACTS: Before R.A. No. 9337 took effect, petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition for prohibition on May 27, 2005 questioning the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties, Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods, and Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties. These questioned provisions contain a uniformp ro v is o authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after specified conditions have been satisfied. Petitioners argue that the law is unconstitutional. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not there is a violation of Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution. 2. Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative power in violation of Article VI Sec 28(2) of the Constitution. 3. Whether or not there is a violation of the due process and equal protection under Article III Sec. 1 of the Constitution. RULING: 1. Since there is no question that the revenue bill exclusively originated in the House of Representatives, the Senate was acting within its constitutional power to introduce amendments to the House bill when it included provisions in Senate Bill No. 1950 amending corporate income taxes, percentage, and excise and franchise taxes. 2. 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 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. 3. The power of the State to make reasonable and natural classifications for the purposes of taxation has long been established. Whether it relates to the subject of taxation, the kind of property, the rates to be levied, or the amounts to be raised, the methods of assessment, valuation and collection, the States power is entitled to presumption of validity. As a rule, the judiciary will not interfere with such power absent a clear showing of unreasonableness, discrimination, or arbitrariness.

Republic SUPREME Manila FIRST DIVISION

of

the

Philippines COURT

G.R. No. 124043 October 14, 1998 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS and YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., respondents.

PANGANIBAN, J.: Is the income derived from rentals of real property owned by the Young Men's 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 latter's 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 of Tax Appeals (CTA) on March 14, 1989. In due course, the CTA issued this ruling in favor of the YMCA: . . . [T]he leasing of [private respondent's] 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] contractor's tax in the amount[s] of P353.15 and P3,129.73, respectively. xxx xxx xxx WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the following assessments are hereby dismissed for lack of merit: 1980 Deficiency Fixed Tax P353,15; 1980 Deficiency Contractor's 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 petitioner's (herein respondent's) 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 Contractor's Tax P 3,129.23, & 1980 Deficiency Income Tax P 372,578.20 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 CTA's findings of fact, as they are supported by evidence beyond what is considered as substantial.

xxx xxx xxx 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 CTA's decision is AFFIRMED in toto. 9 The internal revenue commissioner's 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 Court's Ruling The petition is meritorious. First Factual Findings of the CTA Issue:

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 respondent's 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 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 Is the Rental Income of the YMCA Taxable? Issue:

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 xxx xxx xxx (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; xxx xxx xxx 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 the tax imposed under this Code. (as amended by Pres. Decree No. 1457) Petitioner 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 ". . . 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 . . . ." Petitioner adds that "rental 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 in 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 tax imposed by the same Code. Because the last paragraph of said section unequivocally subjects to tax the rent income of the YMCA from its real 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. 21Parenthetically, 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 liberal 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 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 is 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 one 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 ". . . 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." 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 26, par. 3 of the Constitution. Private respondent also invokes Article XIV, Section 4, par. 3 of the Character, 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 chronologically 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" and "By-Laws" 43of 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 ". . . school seminary, college or educational establishment . . . ." 46 Therefore, the private respondent cannot be deemed one of the educational institutions covered by the constitutional provision under consideration. . . . 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 phases 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 and Abra 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 of 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 has not given any proof that it is an educational institution, or that part 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 of its cause. However, the Court's 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 members 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 REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 16, 1995 is REINSTATED, insofar as it ruled that the income derived by petitioner from rentals of its real property is subject to income tax. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., Vitug and Quisumbing, JJ., concur. Bellosillo, J., Please see Dissenting Opinion.

Separate Opinions

BELLOSILLO, J., dissenting; I vote to deny the petition. The basic rule is that the factual findings of the Court of Tax Appeals when supported by substantial evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that the court committed grave error in the appreciation of facts. 1 In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the validity of the findings of the Court of Tax Appeals that private respondent

Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) is an association organized and operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare and other non-profitable purposes, particularly the physical and character development of the youth. 2 The enduring objectives of respondent YMCA as reflected in its Constitution and By-laws are: (a) To develop well-balanced Christian personality, mission in life, usefulness of individuals, and the promotion of unity among Christians and understanding among peoples of all faiths, to the end that the Brotherhood of Man under the Fatherhood of God may be fostered in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding; (b) To promote on equal basis the physical, mental, and spiritual welfare of the youth, with emphasis on reverence for God, social discipline, responsibility for the common good, respect for human dignity, and the observance of the Golden Rule; (c) To encourage members of the Young Men's Christian Associations in the Philippines to participate loyally in the life of their respective churches; to bring these churches closer together; and to participate in the effort to realize the church Universal; (d) To strengthen and coordinate the work of the Young Men's Christian Associations in the Philippines and to foster the extension of the Youth Men's Christian Associations to new areas; (e) To help its Member Associations develop and adopt their programs to the needs of the youth; (f) To assist the Member Associations in developing and maintaining a high standard of management, operation and practice; and (g) To undertake and sponsor national and international programs and activities in pursuance of its purposes and objectives. 3 Pursuant to these objectives, YMCA has continuously organized and undertaken throughout the country various programs for the youth through actual workshops, seminars, training, sports and summer camps, conferences on the cultivation of Christian moral values, drug addiction, out-ofschool youth, those with handicap and physical defects and youth alcoholism. To fulfill these multifarious projects and attain the laudable objectives of YMCA, fund raising has become an indispensable and integral part of the activities of the Association. YMCA derives its funds from various sources such as membership dues, charges on the use of facilities like bowling and billiards, lodging, interest income, parking fees, restaurant and canteen. Since the membership dues are very minimal, the Association derives funds from rentals of small shops, restaurant, canteen and parking fees. For the taxable year ending December 1980, YMCA earned gross rental income of P676,829.00 and P44,259.00 from parking fees which became the subject of the questioned assessment by petitioner. The majority of this Court upheld the findings of the Court of Tax Appeals that the leasing of petitioner's facilities to small shop owners and to restaurant and canteen operators in addition to the operation of a parking lot are reasonably necessary for and incidental to the

accomplishment of the objectives of YMCA. 4 In fact, these facilities are leased to members in order to service their needs and those of their guests. The rentals are minimal, such as, the rent of P300.00 for the barbershop. With regard to parking space, there is no lot actually devoted therefor and the parking is done only along the sides of the building. The parking is primarily for members with car stickers but to non-members, parking fee is P0.50 only. The rentals and parking fees are just enough to cover the operation and maintenance costs of these facilities. The earnings which YMCA derives from these rentals and parking fees, together with the charges for lodging and use of recreational facilities, constitute the bulk or majority of its income used to support its programs and activities. In its decision of 16 February 1994, the Court of Appeals thus committed grave error in departing from the findings of the Court of Tax Appeals by declaring that the leasing of YMCA's facilities to shop owners and restaurant operators and the operation of a parking lot are used for commercial purposes or for profit, which fact takes YMCA outside the coverage of tax exemption. In later granting the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent YMCA, the Court of Appeals correctly reversed its earlier decision and upheld the findings of the Court of Tax Appeals by ruling that YMCA is not designed for profit and the little income it derives from rentals and parking fees helps maintain its noble existence for the fulfillment of its goals for the Christian development of the youth. Respondent YMCA is undoubtedly exempt from corporate income tax under the provisions of Sec. 27, pars. (g) and (h), of the National Internal Revenue Code, to wit: 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 . . . (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 . . . . 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. The majority of the Court accepted petitioner's view that while the income of organizations enumerated in Sec. 27 are exempt from income tax, such exemption does not however extend to their income of whatever kind or character from any of their properties real or personal regardless of the disposition made of such income; that based on the wording of the law which is plain and simple and does not need any interpretation, any income of a tax exempt entity from any of its properties is a taxable income; hence, the rental income derived by a tax exempt organization from the lease of its properties is not therefore exempt from income taxation even if such income is exclusively used for the accomplishment of its objectives. Income derived from its property by a tax exempt organization is not absolutely taxable. Taken in solitude, a word or phrase such as, in this case, "the income of whatever kind and character . . . from any of their properties" might easily convey a meaning quite different from the one actually intended and evident when a word or phrase is considered with those with which it is associated. 5 It is a rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, that every part of the statute must be considered

together with the other parts and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment. 6 A close reading of the last paragraph of Sec. 27 of the National Internal Revenue Code, in relation to the whole section on tax exemption of the organizations enumerated therein, shows that the phrase "conducted for profit" in the last paragraph of Sec. 27 qualifies, limits and describes "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" in order to make such income taxable. It is the exception to Sec. 27 pars. (g) and (h) providing for the tax exemptions of the income of said organizations. Hence, if such income from property or any other property is not conducted for profit, then it is not taxable. Even taken alone and understood according to its plain, simple and literal meaning, the word "income" which is derived from property, real or personal, provided in the last paragraph of Sec. 27 means the amount of money coming to a person or corporation within a specified time as profit from investment; the return in money from one's business or capital invested. 7 Income from property also means gains and profits derived from the sale or other disposition of capital assets; the money which any person or corporation periodically receives either as profits from business, or as returns from investments 8 The word "income" as used in tax statutes is to be taken in its ordinary sense as gain or profit. 9 Clearly, therefore, income derived from property whether real or personal connotes profit from business or from investment of the same. If we are to apply the ordinary meaning of income from property as profit to the language of the last paragraph of Sec. 27 of the NIRC, then only those profits arising from business and investment involving property are taxable. In the instant case, there is no question that in leasing its facilities to small shop owners and in operating parking spaces, YMCA does not engage in any profit-making business. Both the Court of Tax Appeals, and the Court of Appeals in its resolution of 25 September 1995, categorically found that these activities conducted on YMCA's property were aimed not only at fulfilling the needs and requirements of its members as part of YMCA's youth program but, more importantly, at raising funds to finance the multifarious projects of the Association. As the Court has ruled in one case, the fact that an educational institution charges tuition fees and other fees for the different services it renders to the students does not in itself make the school a profit-making enterprise that would place it beyond the purview of the law exempting it from taxation. The mere realization of profits out of its operation does not automatically result in the loss of an educational institution's exemption from income tax as long as no part of its profits inures to the benefit of any stockholder or individual. 10 In order to claim exemption from income tax, a corporation or association must show that it is organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, athletic, cultural or educational purposes or for the rehabilitation of veterans, and that no part of its income inures to the benefit of any private stockholder or individual. 11 The main evidence of the purpose of a corporation should be its articles of incorporation and by-laws, for such purpose is required by statute to be stated in the articles of incorporation, and the by-laws outline the administrative organization of the corporation which, in turn, is supposed to insure or facilitate the accomplishment of said purpose. 12 The foregoing principle applies to income derived by tax exempt corporations from their property. The criterion or test in order to make such income taxable is when it arises from purely profit-making business. Otherwise, when the income derived from use of property is reasonable and incidental to the charitable, benevolent, educational or religious purpose for which the corporation or association is created, such income should be tax-exempt.

In Hospital de San Juan de Dios, Inc. v. Pasay City 13 we held In this connection, it should be noted that respondent therein is a corporation organized for "charitable, educational and religious purposes"; that no part of its net income inures to the benefit of any private individual; that it is exempt from paying income tax; that it operates a hospital in which MEDICAL assistance is given to destitute persons free of charge; that it maintains a pharmacy department within the premises of said hospital, to supply drugs and medicines only to charity and paying patients confined therein; and that only the paying patients are required to pay the medicines supplied to them, for which they are charged the cost of the medicines, plus an additional 10% thereof, to partly offset the cost of medicines supplied free of charge to charity patients. Under these facts we are of the opinion and so hold that the Hospital may not be regarded as engaged in "business" by reason of said sale of medicines to its paying patients . . . (W)e held that the UST Hospital was not established for profit-making purposes, despite the fact that it had 140 paying beds, because the same were maintained only to partly finance the expenses of the free wards containing 203 beds for charity patients. In YMCA of Manila v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 14 this Court explained It is claimed however that the institution is run as a business in that it keeps a lodging and boarding house. It may be admitted that there are 64 persons occupying rooms in the main building as lodgers or roomers and that they take their meals at the restaurant below. These facts however are far from constituting a business in the ordinary acceptation of the word. In the first place, no profit is realized by the association in any sense. In the second place it is undoubted, as it is undisputed, that the purpose of the association is not primarily to obtain the money which comes from the lodgers and boarders. The real purpose is to keep the membership continually within the sphere of influence of the institution; and thereby to prevent, as far as possible, the opportunities which vice presents to young men in foreign countries who lack home or other similar influences. The majority, if not all, of the income of the organizations covered by the exemption provided in Sec. 27, pars. (g) and (h), of the NIRC are derived from their properties, real or personal. If we are to interpret the last paragraph of Sec. 27 to the effect that all income of whatever kind from the properties of said organization, real or personal, are taxable, even if not conducted for profit, then Sec. 27, pars. (g) and (h), would be rendered ineffective and nugatory. As this Court elucidated in Jesus Sacred Heart College v. Collector of Internal Revenue , 15 every responsible organization must be so run as to at least insure its existence by operating within the limits of its own resources, especially its regular income. It should always strive whenever possible to have a surplus. If the benefits of the exemption would be limited to institutions which do not hope or propose to have such surplus, then the exemption would apply only to schools which are on the verge of bankruptcy. Unlike the United States where a substantial number of institutions of learning are dependent upon voluntary contributions and still enjoy economic stability, such as Harvard, the trust fund of which has been steadily increasing with the years, there are and there have always been very few educational enterprises in the Philippines which are supported by donations, and these organizations usually have a very precarious existence. 16

Finally, the non-taxability of all income and properties of educational institutions finds enduring support in Art. XIV, Sec. 4, par. 3, of the 1987 Constitution (3) All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties. Upon the dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence of such institutions, their assets shall be disposed of in the manner provided by law. In YMCA of Manila v. Collector of Internal Revenue 17 this Court categorically held and found YMCA to be an educational institution exclusively devoted to educational and charitable purposes and not operated for profit. The purposes of the Association as set forth in its charter and constitution are "to develop the Christian character and usefulness of its members, to improve the spiritual, intellectual, social and physical condition of young men and to acquire, hold, mortgage and dispose of the necessary lands, buildings and personal property for the use of said corporation exclusively for religious, charitable and educational purposes, and not for investment or profit." YMCA has an educational department, the aim of which is to furnish, at much less than cost, instructions on subjects that will greatly increase the mental efficiency and wage-earning capacity of young men, prepare them in special lines of business and offer them special lines of study. We ruled therein that YMCA cannot be said to be an institution used exclusively for religious purposes or an institution devoted exclusively for charitable purposes or an institution devoted exclusively to educational purposes, but it can be truthfully said that it is an institution used exclusively for all three purposes and that, as such, it is entitled to be exempted from taxation. Separate Opinions BELLOSILLO, J., dissenting; I vote to deny the petition. The basic rule is that the factual findings of the Court of Tax Appeals when supported by substantial evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that the court committed grave error in the appreciation of facts. 1 In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the validity of the findings of the Court of Tax Appeals that private respondent Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) is an association organized and operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare and other non-profitable purposes, particularly the physical and character development of the youth. 2 The enduring objectives of respondent YMCA as reflected in its Constitution and By-laws are: (a) To develop well-balanced Christian personality, mission in life, usefulness of individuals, and the promotion of unity among Christians and understanding among peoples of all faiths, to the end that the Brotherhood of Man under the Fatherhood of God may be fostered in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding; (b) To promote on equal basis the physical, mental, and spiritual welfare of the youth, with emphasis on reverence for God, social discipline, responsibility for the common good, respect for human dignity, and the observance of the Golden Rule; (c) To encourage members of the Young Men's Christian Associations in the Philippines to participate loyally in the life of their respective churches; to bring

these churches closer together; and to participate in the effort to realize the church Universal; (d) To strengthen and coordinate the work of the Young Men's Christian Associations in the Philippines and to foster the extension of the Youth Men's Christian Associations to new areas; (e) To help its Member Associations develop and adopt their programs to the needs of the youth; (f) To assist the Member Associations in developing and maintaining a high standard of management, operation and practice; and (g) To undertake and sponsor national and international programs and activities in pursuance of its purposes and objectives. 3 Pursuant to these objectives, YMCA has continuously organized and undertaken throughout the country various programs for the youth through actual workshops, seminars, training, sports and summer camps, conferences on the cultivation of Christian moral values, drug addiction, out-ofschool youth, those with handicap and physical defects and youth alcoholism. To fulfill these multifarious projects and attain the laudable objectives of YMCA, fund raising has become an indispensable and integral part of the activities of the Association. YMCA derives its funds from various sources such as membership dues, charges on the use of facilities like bowling and billiards, lodging, interest income, parking fees, restaurant and canteen. Since the membership dues are very minimal, the Association derives funds from rentals of small shops, restaurant, canteen and parking fees. For the taxable year ending December 1980, YMCA earned gross rental income of P676,829.00 and P44,259.00 from parking fees which became the subject of the questioned assessment by petitioner. The majority of this Court upheld the findings of the Court of Tax Appeals that the leasing of petitioner's facilities to small shop owners and to restaurant and canteen operators in addition to the operation of a parking lot are reasonably necessary for and incidental to the accomplishment of the objectives of YMCA. 4 In fact, these facilities are leased to members in order to service their needs and those of their guests. The rentals are minimal, such as, the rent of P300.00 for the barbershop. With regard to parking space, there is no lot actually devoted therefor and the parking is done only along the sides of the building. The parking is primarily for members with car stickers but to non-members, parking fee is P0.50 only. The rentals and parking fees are just enough to cover the operation and maintenance costs of these facilities. The earnings which YMCA derives from these rentals and parking fees, together with the charges for lodging and use of recreational facilities, constitute the bulk or majority of its income used to support its programs and activities. In its decision of 16 February 1994, the Court of Appeals thus committed grave error in departing from the findings of the Court of Tax Appeals by declaring that the leasing of YMCA's facilities to shop owners and restaurant operators and the operation of a parking lot are used for commercial purposes or for profit, which fact takes YMCA outside the coverage of tax exemption. In later granting the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent YMCA, the Court of Appeals correctly reversed its earlier decision and upheld the findings of the Court of Tax Appeals by ruling that YMCA is not designed for profit and the little income it derives from

rentals and parking fees helps maintain its noble existence for the fulfillment of its goals for the Christian development of the youth. Respondent YMCA is undoubtedly exempt from corporate income tax under the provisions of Sec. 27, pars. (g) and (h), of the National Internal Revenue Code, to wit: 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 . . . (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 . . . . 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. The majority of the Court accepted petitioner's view that while the income of organizations enumerated in Sec. 27 are exempt from income tax, such exemption does not however extend to their income of whatever kind or character from any of their properties real or personal regardless of the disposition made of such income; that based on the wording of the law which is plain and simple and does not need any interpretation, any income of a tax exempt entity from any of its properties is a taxable income; hence, the rental income derived by a tax exempt organization from the lease of its properties is not therefore exempt from income taxation even if such income is exclusively used for the accomplishment of its objectives. Income derived from its property by a tax exempt organization is not absolutely taxable. Taken in solitude, a word or phrase such as, in this case, "the income of whatever kind and character . . . from any of their properties" might easily convey a meaning quite different from the one actually intended and evident when a word or phrase is considered with those with which it is associated. 5 It is a rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, that every part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment. 6 A close reading of the last paragraph of Sec. 27 of the National Internal Revenue Code, in relation to the whole section on tax exemption of the organizations enumerated therein, shows that the phrase "conducted for profit" in the last paragraph of Sec. 27 qualifies, limits and describes "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" in order to make such income taxable. It is the exception to Sec. 27 pars. (g) and (h) providing for the tax exemptions of the income of said organizations. Hence, if such income from property or any other property is not conducted for profit, then it is not taxable. Even taken alone and understood according to its plain, simple and literal meaning, the word "income" which is derived from property, real or personal, provided in the last paragraph of Sec. 27 means the amount of money coming to a person or corporation within a specified time as profit from investment; the return in money from one's business or capital invested. 7 Income from property also means gains and profits derived from the sale or other disposition of capital assets; the money which any person or corporation periodically receives either as profits from

business, or as returns from investments 8 The word "income" as used in tax statutes is to be taken in its ordinary sense as gain or profit. 9 Clearly, therefore, income derived from property whether real or personal connotes profit from business or from investment of the same. If we are to apply the ordinary meaning of income from property as profit to the language of the last paragraph of Sec. 27 of the NIRC, then only those profits arising from business and investment involving property are taxable. In the instant case, there is no question that in leasing its facilities to small shop owners and in operating parking spaces, YMCA does not engage in any profit-making business. Both the Court of Tax Appeals, and the Court of Appeals in its resolution of 25 September 1995, categorically found that these activities conducted on YMCA's property were aimed not only at fulfilling the needs and requirements of its members as part of YMCA's youth program but, more importantly, at raising funds to finance the multifarious projects of the Association. As the Court has ruled in one case, the fact that an educational institution charges tuition fees and other fees for the different services it renders to the students does not in itself make the school a profit-making enterprise that would place it beyond the purview of the law exempting it from taxation. The mere realization of profits out of its operation does not automatically result in the loss of an educational institution's exemption from income tax as long as no part of its profits inures to the benefit of any stockholder or individual. 10 In order to claim exemption from income tax, a corporation or association must show that it is organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, athletic, cultural or educational purposes or for the rehabilitation of veterans, and that no part of its income inures to the benefit of any private stockholder or individual. 11 The main evidence of the purpose of a corporation should be its articles of incorporation and by-laws, for such purpose is required by statute to be stated in the articles of incorporation, and the by-laws outline the administrative organization of the corporation which, in turn, is supposed to insure or facilitate the accomplishment of said purpose. 12 The foregoing principle applies to income derived by tax exempt corporations from their property. The criterion or test in order to make such income taxable is when it arises from purely profit-making business. Otherwise, when the income derived from use of property is reasonable and incidental to the charitable, benevolent, educational or religious purpose for which the corporation or association is created, such income should be tax-exempt. In Hospital de San Juan de Dios, Inc. v. Pasay City 13 we held In this connection, it should be noted that respondent therein is a corporation organized for "charitable, educational and religious purposes"; that no part of its net income inures to the benefit of any private individual; that it is exempt from paying income tax; that it operates a hospital in which MEDICAL assistance is given to destitute persons free of charge; that it maintains a pharmacy department within the premises of said hospital, to supply drugs and medicines only to charity and paying patients confined therein; and that only the paying patients are required to pay the medicines supplied to them, for which they are charged the cost of the medicines, plus an additional 10% thereof, to partly offset the cost of medicines supplied free of charge to charity patients. Under these facts we are of the opinion and so hold that the Hospital may not be regarded as engaged in "business" by reason of said sale of medicines to its paying patients . . . (W)e held that the UST Hospital was not established for profit-making purposes, despite the fact that it had 140 paying beds, because the same were

maintained only to partly finance the expenses of the free wards containing 203 beds for charity patients. In YMCA of Manila v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 14 this Court explained It is claimed however that the institution is run as a business in that it keeps a lodging and boarding house. It may be admitted that there are 64 persons occupying rooms in the main building as lodgers or roomers and that they take their meals at the restaurant below. These facts however are far from constituting a business in the ordinary acceptation of the word. In the first place, no profit is realized by the association in any sense. In the second place it is undoubted, as it is undisputed, that the purpose of the association is not primarily to obtain the money which comes from the lodgers and boarders. The real purpose is to keep the membership continually within the sphere of influence of the institution; and thereby to prevent, as far as possible, the opportunities which vice presents to young men in foreign countries who lack home or other similar influences. The majority, if not all, of the income of the organizations covered by the exemption provided in Sec. 27, pars. (g) and (h), of the NIRC are derived from their properties, real or personal. If we are to interpret the last paragraph of Sec. 27 to the effect that all income of whatever kind from the properties of said organization, real or personal, are taxable, even if not conducted for profit, then Sec. 27, pars. (g) and (h), would be rendered ineffective and nugatory. As this Court elucidated in Jesus Sacred Heart College v. Collector of Internal Revenue , 15 every responsible organization must be so run as to at least insure its existence by operating within the limits of its own resources, especially its regular income. It should always strive whenever possible to have a surplus. If the benefits of the exemption would be limited to institutions which do not hope or propose to have such surplus, then the exemption would apply only to schools which are on the verge of bankruptcy. Unlike the United States where a substantial number of institutions of learning are dependent upon voluntary contributions and still enjoy economic stability, such as Harvard, the trust fund of which has been steadily increasing with the years, there are and there have always been very few educational enterprises in the Philippines which are supported by donations, and these organizations usually have a very precarious existence. 16 Finally, the non-taxability of all income and properties of educational institutions finds enduring support in Art. XIV, Sec. 4, par. 3, of the 1987 Constitution (3) All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties. Upon the dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence of such institutions, their assets shall be disposed of in the manner provided by law. In YMCA of Manila v. Collector of Internal Revenue 17 this Court categorically held and found YMCA to be an educational institution exclusively devoted to educational and charitable purposes and not operated for profit. The purposes of the Association as set forth in its charter and constitution are "to develop the Christian character and usefulness of its members, to improve the spiritual, intellectual, social and physical condition of young men and to acquire, hold, mortgage and dispose of the necessary lands, buildings and personal property for the use of said corporation exclusively for religious, charitable and educational purposes, and not for investment or profit." YMCA has an educational department, the aim of which is to furnish, at much less than cost, instructions on subjects that will greatly increase the mental efficiency and

wage-earning capacity of young men, prepare them in special lines of business and offer them special lines of study. We ruled therein that YMCA cannot be said to be an institution used exclusively for religious purposes or an institution devoted exclusively for charitable purposes or an institution devoted exclusively to educational purposes, but it can be truthfully said that it is an institution used exclusively for all three purposes and that, as such, it is entitled to be exempted from taxation.

Republic SUPREME Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 144104

of

the

Philippines COURT

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. DECISION CALLEJO, SR., J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, of the Decision1 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 outpatients, 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 Exemption5 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-BAA9 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 beP357,000 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;lavvph!l.net 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 wellbeing 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;lavvphil.net 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 outpatient, 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 In Congregational 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 Careand 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 the 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, andexclusively 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 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."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. Davide, Jr., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concur.

Republic SUPREME Manila EN BANC

of

the

Philippines COURT

G.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 Provincial Fiscal Santos for defendant-appellants. Coloma for plaintiff-appellant.

AVANCEA, 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.

Separate Opinions

MALCOLM, J., dissenting: The Assessment Law exempts from taxation "Cemeteries or burial grounds . . . and all lands, buildings, and improvements use exclusively for religious . . . purposes, but this exemption shall not extend to property held for investment, or which produces income, even though the income be devoted to some one or more of the purposes above specified." (Administrative Code, sec. 344; Act No. 2749, sec. 1.) That is the applicable law. The facts may be taken as found by the judge of First Instance, who made his findings more certain by an ocular inspection of the property under consideration. The testimony and the inspection disclosed that the lot Known as "huerta" was not devoted to religious purposes, and that the old cemetery had long since leased to be used as such and had been planted to corn. Those are the facts. The test to be applied to the combined law and facts must be the actual use of the property. The property legally exempt from the payment of taxes must be devoted to some purpose specified in the law. A "huerta" not needed or used exclusively for religious purposes is not thus exempt. A cemetery or burial ground no longer a cemetery or a burial ground is not thus exempt. Accordingly, I prefer to vote for the affirmance of Judge Mariano's decision.

Republic SUPREME Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-15270

of

the

Philippines COURT

September 30, 1961

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

CONCEPCION, J.: Appeal, by petitioners Jose V. Herrera and Ester Ochangco Herrera, from a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals affirming that of the Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City, which held that certain properties of said petitioners are subject to assessment for purposes of real estate tax. The facts and the issue are set forth in the aforementioned decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, from which we quote: On July 24, 1952, the Director of the Bureau of Hospitals authorized the petitioners to establish and operate the "St. Catherine's Hospital", located at 58 D. Tuazon, Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City (Exhibit "F-1", p. 7, BIR rec.). On or about January 3, 1953, the petitioners sent a letter to the Quezon City Assessor requesting exemption from payment of real estate tax on the lot, building and other improvements comprising the hospital stating that the same was established for charitable and humanitarian purposes and not for commercial gain (Exhibit "F-2", pp. 8-9, BIR rec.). After an inspection of the premises in question and after a careful study of the case, the exemption from real property taxes was granted effective the years 1953, 1954 and 1955. Subsequently, however, in a letter dated August 10, 1955 (Exhibit "E", p. 65, CTA rec.) the Quezon City Assessor notified the petitioners that the aforesaid properties were re-classified from exempt to "taxable" and thus assessed for real property taxes effective 1956, enclosing therewith copies of Tax Declarations Nos. 19321 to 19322 covering the said properties. The petitioners appealed the assessment to the Quezon City Board of Assessment Appeals, which, in a decision dated March 31, 1956 and received by the former on May 17, 1956, affirmed the decision of the City Assessor. A motion for reconsideration thereof was denied on March 8, 1957. From this decision, the petitioners instituted the instant appeal.1awphl.nt The building involved in this case is principally used as a hospital. It is mainly a surgical and orthopedic hospital with emphasis on obstetrical cases, the latter constituting 90% of the total number of cases registered therein. The hospital has thirtytwo (32) beds, of which twenty (20) are for charity-patients and twelve (12) for paypatients. From the evidence presented by petitioners, it is made to appear that there are two kinds of charity patients (a) those who come for consultation only ("out-charity patients"); and (b) those who remain in the hospital for treatment ("lying-in-patients"). The out-charity patients are given free consultation and prescription, although sometimes they are furnished with free medicines which are not costly like aspirin, sulfatiazole, etc. The charity lying-in-patients are given free medical service and

medicine although the food served to the pay-patients is very much better than that given to the former. Although no condition is imposed by the hospital on the admission of charity lying-in-patients, they however, usually give donations to the hospital. On the other hand, the pay-patients are required to pay for hospital services ranging from the minimum charge of P5.00 to the maximum of P40.00 for each day of stay in the hospital. The income realized from pay-patients is spent for the improvement of the charity wards. The hospital personnel is composed of three nurses, two graduate midwives, a resident physician receiving a salary of P170.00 a month and the petitioner, Dr. Ester Ochangco Herrera, as directress. As such directress, the latter does not receive any salary. Petitioners also operate within the premises of the hospital the "St. Catherine's School of Midwifery" which was granted government recognition by the Secretary of Education on February 1, 1955 (Exhibit "F-3", p. 10, BIR rec.) This school has an enrollment of about two hundred students. The students are charged a matriculation fee of P300.00 for 1- years, plus P50.00 a month for board and lodging, which includes transportation to the St. Mary's Hospital. The students practice in the St. Catherine's Hospital, as well as in the St. Mary's Hospital, which is also owned by the petitioners. A separate set of accounting books is maintained by the school for midwifery distinct from that kept by the hospital. The petitioners alleged that the accounts of the school are not included in Exhibits "A", "A-1", "A-2", "B", "B-1", "B-2", "C", "C-1" and "C-2" which relate to the hospital only. However, the petitioners have refused to submit a separate statement of accounts of the school. A brief tabulation indicating the amount of income of the hospital for the years 1954, 1955 and 1956, and its operational expenses, is as follows:

1954 Income Charity Ward P14,779.50 Pay Ward (Exhibits "A", "A-1" and "A-2") 1955 Income Charity Ward P17,433.30 Pay Ward (Exhibits "B", "B-1" and "B-2") 1956 Income Charity Ward P21,467.40 Pay Ward Expenses Deficit Expenses Deficit Expenses Deficit

P 5,280.04 P1,303.80 P10,803.26 P16,083.30

P 6,859.32 14,038.92 P3,464.94 P20,898.24

P 5,559.89 P 341.53 16,249.04

P21,809.93 (Exhibits "C", "C-1" and "C-2") Aside from the St. Catherine and St. Mary hospitals, the petitioners declared that they also own lands and coconut plantations in Quezon Province, and other real estate in the City of Manila consisting of apartments for rent. The petitioner, Jose V. Herrera, is an architect, actively engaged in the practice of his profession, with office at Tuason Building, Escolta, Manila. He was formerly Chairman, Board of Examiners for Architects and Chairman, Board of Architects connected with the United Nations. He was also connected with the Allied Technologists which constructed the Veterans Hospital in Quezon City. The only issue raised, is whether or not the lot, building and other improvements occupied by the St. Catherine Hospital are exempt from the real property tax. The resolution of this question boils down to the corollary issue as to whether or not the said properties are used exclusively for charitable or educational purposes. (Petitioners' brief, pp. 24-29). The Court of Tax Appeals decided the issue in the negative, upon the ground that the St. Catherine's Hospital "has a pay ward for ... pay-patients, who are charged for the use of the private rooms, operating room, laboratory room, delivery room, etc., like other hospitals operated for profit" and that "petitioners and their family occupy a portion of the building for their residence." With respect to petitioners' claim for exemption based upon the operation of the school of midwifery, the Court conceded that "the proposition might be proper if the property used for the school of midwifery were separate and distinct from the hospital." It added, however, that, "in the instant case, the portions of the building used for classrooms of the school of midwifery have not been shown to be exclusively for school purposes"; that said portions "rather ... have a dual use, i.e., for classroom and for hospital use, the latter not being a purpose that renders the property tax exempt;" that part of the building and lot in question "is used as a hospital, part as residence of the petitioners, part as garage, part as dormitory and part as school"; and that "the portion dedicated to educational and charitable purposes can not be identified from those destined to other uses; and the building is itself an indivisible unit of property." It should be noted, however, that, according to the very statement of facts made in the decision appealed from, of the thirty-two (32) beds in the hospital, twenty (20) are for charitypatients; 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, L12127, 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. Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes and De Leon, JJ., concur.

Republic SUPREME Manila SECOND DIVISION

of

the

Philippines COURT

G.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. Agripin o Brillant es Typ AGRIP INO BRILL ANTE S Attorne y for

Plaintif f Sgd. Loreto Roldan Typ LORE TO ROLD AN Provin cial Fiscal Couns el for Defend ants Provin cial Treasu rer of Abra and the Munici pal Treasu rer of Bangu ed, Abra Sgd. Demet rio V. Pre Typ. DEME TRIO V. PRE Attorne y for Defend ant Patern o Millare (Rollo,

pp. 1718) 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 purposeeducational, 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. Yap, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

Republic SUPREME Manila THIRD DIVISION

of

the

Philippines COURT

SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, - versus THE CITY OF DAVAO, represented herein by its

G.R. No. 155491 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,

Mayor HON. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE, and the Chairperson, SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD OF DAVAO CITY, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, Respondents. CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: September 16, 2008 x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x DECISION NACHURA, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by Smart Communications, Inc. (Smart) against the City of Davao, represented by its Mayor, Hon. Rodrigo R. Duterte, and the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City, to annul the Decision1 dated July 19, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and its Order 2 dated September 26, 2002 in Sp. Civil Case No. 28,976-2002. The Facts On February 18, 2002, Smart filed a special civil action for declaratory relief 3 under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, for the ascertainment of its rights and obligations under the Tax Code of the City of Davao,4 particularly Section 1, Article 10 thereof, the pertinent portion of which reads: 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 contends that its telecenter in Davao City is exempt from payment of franchise tax to the City, on the following grounds: (a) the issuance of its franchise under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 72945 subsequent to R.A. No. 7160 shows the clear legislative intent to exempt it from the provisions of R.A. 7160; 6 (b) 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; (c) 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 (d) the imposition of franchise tax by the City of Davao would amount to a violation of the constitutional provision against impairment of contracts.7

On March 2, 2002, respondents filed their Answer 8 in which they contested the tax exemption claimed by Smart. They invoked the power granted by the Constitution to local government units to create their own sources of revenue.9 On May 17, 2002, a pre-trial conference was held. Inasmuch as only legal issues were involved in the case, the RTC issued an order requiring the parties to submit their respective memoranda and, thereafter, the case would be deemed submitted for resolution.10 On July 19, 2002, the RTC rendered its Decision11 denying the petition. The trial court noted that the ambiguity of the "in lieu of all taxes" provision in R.A. No. 7294, on whether it covers both national and local taxes, must be resolved against the taxpayer. 12 The RTC ratiocinated that tax exemptions are construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority and, thus, those who assert a tax exemption must justify it with words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical not to be misinterpreted.13 On the issue of violation of the non-impairment clause of the Constitution, the trial court cited Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Marcos, 14 and declared that the citys 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. It added 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.15 Smart filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the trial court in an Order16 dated September 26, 2002. Thus, the instant case. Smart assigns the following errors: [a.] THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT UNDER PETITIONERS FRANCHISE (REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7294), WHICH CONTAINS THE "IN LIEU OF ALL TAXES" CLAUSE, AND WHICH IS A SPECIAL LAW ENACTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, NO FRANCHISE TAX MAY BE IMPOSED ON PETITIONER BY RESPONDENT CITY. [b.] THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS FRANCHISE IS A GENERAL LAW AND DID NOT REPEAL RELEVANT PROVISIONS REGARDING FRANCHISE TAX OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE COURT IS A SPECIAL LAW. [c.] THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT SECTION 137 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH, IN RELATION TO SECTION 151 THEREOF, ALLOWS RESPONDENT CITY TO IMPOSE THE FRANCHISE TAX, AND SECTION 193 OF THE CODE, WHICH PROVIDES FOR WITHDRAWAL OF TAX EXEMPTION PRIVILEGES, ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE. [d.] THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT SECTIONS 137 AND 193 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REFER ONLY TO EXEMPTIONS ALREADY EXISTING AT THE TIME OF ITS ENACTMENT BUT NOT TO FUTURE EXEMPTIONS.

[e.] THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN APPLYING THE RULE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION THAT TAX EXEMPTIONS ARE CONSTRUED STRICTLY AGAINST THE TAXPAYER. [f.] THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS FRANCHISE (REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7294) HAS BEEN AMENDED AND EXPANDED BY SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7925, "THE PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY ACT," TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FRANCHISE OF GLOBE TELECOM, INC. (GLOBE) (REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7229), WHICH ARE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND WERE ENACTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, THEREBY PROVIDING AN ADDITIONAL GROUND WHY NO FRANCHISE TAX MAY BE IMPOSED ON PETITIONER BY RESPONDENT CITY. [g.] THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE RULING OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, THROUGH ITS BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE, THAT PETITIONER IS EXEMPT FROM THE PAYMENT OF THE FRANCHISE TAX IMPOSABLE BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. [h.] THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE IMPOSITION OF THE LOCAL FRANCHISE TAX ON PETITIONER WOULD VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS. [i.] THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE PETITION BELOW.17 The Issue In sum, the pivotal issue in this case is whether Smart is liable to pay the franchise tax imposed by the City of Davao. The Ruling of the Court We rule in the affirmative. I. Prospective Effect of R.A. No. 7160 On March 27, 1992, Smarts legislative franchise (R.A. No. 7294) took effect. Section 9 thereof, quoted hereunder, is at the heart of the present controversy: 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. 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.) Smart alleges 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.18 On January 1, 1992, two months ahead of Smarts franchise, 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; while Section 193 thereof provided for the withdrawal of tax exemption privileges granted prior to the issuance of R.A. No. 7160 except for those expressly mentioned therein, viz.: 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. 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 thereon, as provided herein. Section 151. Scope of Taxing Powers. Except as otherwise provided in this Code, the city may levy the taxes, fees, and charges which the province or municipality may impose: Provided, however, That the taxes, fees and charges levied and collected by highly urbanized and independent component cities shall accrue to them and distributed in accordance with the provisions of this Code. The rates of taxes that the city may levy may exceed the maximum rates allowed for the province or municipality by not more than fifty percent (50%) except the rates of professional and amusement taxes. Section 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges. Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under RA No. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. (Emphasis supplied.) Smart argues that it is not covered by Section 137, in relation to Section 151 of R.A. No. 7160, because its franchise was granted after the effectivity of the said law. We agree with Smarts contention on this matter. The withdrawal of tax exemptions or incentives provided

in R.A. No. 7160 can only affect those franchises granted prior to the effectivity of the law. The intention of the legislature to remove all tax exemptions or incentives granted prior to the said law is evident in the language of Section 193 of R.A. No. 7160. No interpretation is necessary. II. The "in lieu of all taxes" Clause in R.A. No. 7294 The "in lieu of all taxes" clause in Smarts franchise is put in issue before the Court. In order to ascertain its meaning, consistent with fundamentals of statutory construction, all the words in the statute must be considered. The grant of tax exemption by R.A. No. 7294 is not to be interpreted from a consideration of a single portion or of isolated words or clauses, but from a general view of the act as a whole. Every part of the statute must be construed with reference to the context.19 Smart is of the view that the only taxes it may be made to bear under its franchise are the national franchise tax (now VAT), income tax, and real property tax. 20 It claims exemption from the local franchise tax because the "in lieu of taxes" clause in its franchise does not distinguish between national and local taxes.21 We pay heed that 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. The uncertainty in the "in lieu of all taxes" clause in R.A. No. 7294 on whether Smart is exempted from both local and national franchise tax must be construed strictly against Smart which claims the exemption. Smart has the burden of proving that, aside from the imposed 3% franchise tax, Congress intended it to be exempt from all kinds of franchise taxes whether local or national. However, Smart failed in this regard. Tax exemptions are never presumed and are strictly construed against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority.22 They can only be given force when the grant is clear and categorical.23 The surrender of the power to tax, when claimed, must be clearly shown by a language that will admit of no reasonable construction consistent with the reservation of the power. If the intention of the legislature is open to doubt, then the intention of the legislature must be resolved in favor of the State.24 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. As appropriately pointed out in the separate opinion of Justice Antonio T. Carpio in a similar case25 involving a demand for exemption from local franchise taxes: [T]he "in lieu of all taxes" clause in Smart's franchise refers only to taxes, other than

income tax, imposed under the National Internal Revenue Code. The "in lieu of all taxes" clause does not apply to local taxes. The proviso in the first paragraph of Section 9 of 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." Also, the 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." Moreover, the same paragraph declares that the tax returns "shall be subject to audit by the Bureau of Internal Revenue." Nothing is mentioned in Section 9 about local taxes. The clear intent is for the "in lieu of all taxes" clause to apply only to taxes under the National Internal Revenue Code and not to local taxes. Even with respect to national internal revenue taxes, the "in lieu of all taxes" clause does not apply to income tax. 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. Congress could have used the language in Section 9(b) of Clavecilla's old franchise, as follows: x x x 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 the grantee is hereby expressly exempted, x x x. (Emphasis supplied). However, Congress did not expressly exempt Smart from local taxes. Congress used the "in lieu of all taxes" clause only in reference to national internal revenue taxes. The only interpretation, under the rule on strict construction of tax exemptions, is that the "in lieu of all taxes" clause in Smart's franchise refers only to national and not to local 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.26 As admitted by Smart in its pleadings, it is no longer paying the 3% franchise tax mandated in its franchise. Currently, Smart along with other telecommunications companies pays the uniform 10% value-added tax.27 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. 28 R.A. No. 7716, as amended by the Expanded Value Added Tax Law (R.A. No. 8241), the pertinent portion of which is hereunder quoted, amended Section 9 of R.A. No. 7294: 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, a value-added tax equivalent to ten percent (10%) of gross receipts derived 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; stock, real estate, commercial, customs and immigration brokers; lessors of property, whether personal or real; warehousing services; lessors or distributors of cinematographic films; persons engaged in milling, processing, manufacturing or repacking goods for others; proprietors,

operators or keepers of hotels, motels, rest houses, pension houses, inns, resorts; proprietors or operators of restaurants, refreshment parlors, cafes and other eating places, including clubs and caterers; dealers in securities; lending investors; transportation contractors on their transport of goods or cargoes, including persons who transport goods or cargoes for hire and other domestic common carriers by land, air, and water relative to their transport of goods or cargoes; 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; services of banks, non-bank financial intermediaries and finance companies; and non-life insurance companies (except their crop insurances) including surety, fidelity, indemnity and bonding companies; and similar services regardless of whether or not the performance thereof calls for the exercise or use of the physical or mental faculties. x x x.29 R.A. No. 7716, specifically Section 20 thereof, expressly repealed the provisions of all special laws 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.30 In effect, the "in lieu of all taxes" clause in R.A. No. 7294 was rendered ineffective by the advent of the VAT Law.31 However, the franchise tax that the City of Davao may impose must comply with Sections 137 and 151 of R.A. No. 7160. Thus, the local franchise tax that may be imposed by the City must not exceed 50% of 1% of the gross annual receipts for the preceding calendar year based on the income on receipts realized within the territorial jurisdiction of Davao. III. Opinion of the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) In support of its argument that the "in lieu of all taxes" clause is to be construed as an exemption from local franchise taxes, Smart submits the opinion of the Department of Finance, through the BLGF, dated August 13, 1998 and February 24, 1998, regarding the franchises of Smart and Globe, respectively.32 Smart presents the same arguments as the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company in the previous cases already decided by this Court.33 As previously held by the Court, the findings of the BLGF are not conclusive on the courts: [T]he BLGF opined that 23 of R.A. No. 7925 amended the franchise of petitioner and in effect restored its exemptions from local taxes. Petitioner contends that courts should not set aside conclusions reached by the BLGF because its function is precisely the study of local tax problems and it has necessarily developed an expertise on the subject. To be sure, the BLGF is not an administrative agency whose findings on questions of fact are given weight and deference in the courts. The authorities cited by petitioner pertain to the Court of Tax Appeals, a highly specialized court which performs judicial functions as it was created for the review of tax cases. In contrast, the BLGF was created merely to provide consultative services and technical assistance to local governments and the general public on local taxation, real property assessment, and other related matters, among others. The question raised by petitioner is a legal question, to wit, the interpretation of 23 of R.A. No. 7925. There is, therefore, no basis for claiming expertise for the BLGF that administrative agencies are said to possess in their respective fields.

Petitioner likewise argues that the BLGF enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of its duty. It does enjoy this presumption, but this has nothing to do with the question in this case. This case does not concern the regularity of performance of the BLGF in the exercise of its duties, but the correctness of its interpretation of a provision of law.34 IV. Tax Exclusion/Tax Exemption Smart gives another perspective of the "in lieu of all taxes" clause in Section 9 of R.A. No. 7294 in order to avoid the payment of local franchise tax. It says that, viewed from another angle, the "in lieu of all taxes" clause partakes of the nature of a tax exclusion and not a tax exemption. A tax exemption means that the taxpayer does not pay any tax at all. Smart pays VAT, income tax, and real property tax. Thus, what it enjoys is more accurately a tax exclusion.35 However, as previously held by the Court, both in their nature and effect, there is no essential difference between a tax exemption and a tax exclusion. An exemption is an immunity or a privilege; it is the freedom from a charge or burden to which others are subjected. An exclusion, on the other hand, is the removal of otherwise taxable items from the reach of taxation, e.g., exclusions from gross income and allowable deductions. An exclusion is, thus, also an immunity or privilege which frees a taxpayer from a charge to which others are subjected. Consequently, the rule that a tax exemption should be applied in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the government applies equally to tax exclusions.36 V. Section 23 of R.A. No. 7925 To further its claim, Smart invokes Section 23 of the Public Telecommunications Policy Act (R.A. No. 7925): SECTION 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 franchise 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. (Emphasis supplied.) In sum, Smart wants us to interpret anew Section 23 of R.A. No. 7925, in connection with the franchise of Globe (R.A. No. 7227),37 which was enacted on March 19, 1992. Allegedly, by virtue of Section 23 of R.A. No. 7925, otherwise known as the "most favored treatment clause" or the "equality clause," the provision in the franchise of Globe exempting it from local taxes is automatically incorporated in the franchise of Smart.38 Smart posits that, since the franchise of Globe contains a provision exempting it from municipal or local franchise tax, this provision should also benefit Smart by virtue of Section 23 of R.A. No. 7925. The provision in Globes franchise invoked by Smart reads:

(b) The grantee shall further pay to the Treasurer of the Philippines each year after the audit and approval of the accounts as prescribed in this Act, one and one-half per centum of all gross receipts from business transacted under this franchise by the said grantee in the Philippines, 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 the grantee is hereby expressly exempted, effective from the date of the approval of Republic Act Numbered Sixteen hundred eighteen.39 We find no reason to disturb the previous pronouncements of this Court regarding the interpretation of Section 23 of R.A. No. 7925. As aptly explained in the en banc decision of this Court in Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. v. City of Davao, 40 and recently in Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (Digitel) v. Province of Pangasinan,41 Congress, in approving Section 23 of R.A. No. 7925, did not intend it to operate as a blanket tax exemption to all telecommunications entities. 42 The language of Section 23 of R.A. No. 7925 and the proceedings of both Houses of Congress are bereft of anything that would signify the grant of tax exemptions to all telecommunications entities, including those whose exemptions had been withdrawn by R.A. No. 7160. 43 The term "exemption" in Section 23 of R.A. No. 7925 does not mean tax exemption. The term refers to exemption from certain regulations and requirements imposed by the National Telecommunications Commission.44 Furthermore, in the franchise of Globe (R.A. No. 7229), the legislature incontrovertibly stated that it will be liable for one and one-half per centum of all gross receipts from business transacted under the franchise, 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 the grantee is hereby expressly exempted. 45 The grant of exemption from municipal, provincial, or national is clear and categorical that aside from the franchise tax collected by virtue of R.A. No. 7229, no other franchise tax may be collected from Globe regardless of who the taxing power is. No such provision is found in the franchise of Smart; the kind of tax from which it is exempted is not clearly specified. As previously explained by the Court, the stance of Smart would lead to absurd consequences. The acceptance of petitioner's theory would result in absurd consequences. To illustrate: In its franchise, Globe is required to pay a franchise tax of only one and one-half percentum (1%) of all gross receipts from its transactions while Smart is required to pay a tax of three percent (3%) on all gross receipts from business transacted. Petitioner's theory would require that, to level the playing field, any "advantage, favor, privilege, exemption, or immunity" granted to Globe must be extended to all telecommunications companies, including Smart. If, later, Congress again grants a franchise to another telecommunications company imposing, say, one percent (1%) franchise tax, then all other telecommunications franchises will have to be adjusted to "level the playing field" so to speak. This could not have been the intent of Congress in enacting 23 of Rep. Act 7925. Petitioner's theory will leave the Government with the burden of having to keep track of all granted telecommunications franchises, lest some companies be treated unequally. It is different if Congress enacts a law specifically granting uniform advantages, favor, privilege, exemption, or immunity to all telecommunications entities.46

VI. Non-impairment Clause of the Constitution Another argument of Smart is that the imposition of the local franchise tax by the City of Davao would violate the constitutional prohibition against impairment of contracts. The franchise, according to petitioner, is in the nature of a contract between the government and Smart.47 However, we find that there is no violation of Article III, Section 10 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. As previously discussed, 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. The "in lieu of all taxes" clause in Section 9 of R.A. No. 7294 leaves much room for interpretation. Due to this ambiguity in the law, the doubt must be resolved against the grant of tax exemption. Moreover, Smarts franchise was granted with the express condition that it is subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal.48 As held in Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance: 49 It is enough to say that the parties to a contract cannot, through the exercise of prophetic discernment, fetter the exercise of the taxing power of the State. For not only are existing laws read into contracts in order to fix obligations as between parties, but the reservation of essential attributes of sovereign power is also read into contracts as a basic postulate of the legal order. The policy of protecting contracts against impairment presupposes the maintenance of a government which retains adequate authority to secure the peace and good order of society. In truth, the Contract Clause has never been thought as a limitation on the exercise of the States power of taxation save only where a tax exemption has been granted for a valid consideration. x x x. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

Republic SUPREME Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 162015

of

the

Philippines COURT

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.

DECISION GARCIA,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-orcontrolled 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 Bayantels 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 Bayantels Head Office and Operations Center in Roosevelt St., San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City allegedly the nerve center of petitioners telecommunications franchise operations, said Operation Center housing mainly petitioners 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 Bayantels land, building and equipment in Maginhawa St., Barangay East Teachers 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 Bayantels 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 nonpioneer 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 Citys Revenue Code, new tax declarations for Bayantels 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 Bayantels 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 petitioners 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 Bayantels 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 Bayantels petition for prohibition. To petitioners, the appeal mechanics under the LGC constitute Bayantels 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 Bayantels 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-0247292. 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 Bayantels 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 Bayantels 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 Bayantels 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 franchisees 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. Bayantels 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 LGCs taking effect on January 1, 1992, Bayantels "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 Bayantels 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 Bayantels 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 Citys 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 Citys Revenue Code pursuant to which the city treasurer of Quezon 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: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 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 .," 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 Bayantels properties from realty taxes by its enactment of Rep. Act No. 7633 which amended Bayantels original franchise. The more decisive question turns on whether Congress actually did exempt Bayantels 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 Bayantels 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 Bayantels 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 LGCs delegated taxing power, all of the franchisees (Bayantels) 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.

Republic SUPREME COURT FIRST DIVISION

of

the

Philippines

G.R. No. 144486. April 13, 2005 RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (RCPI), Petitioners, 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. DECISION CARPIO, J.: The Case This is a petition for review1 to set aside the Decision2 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 lawfrom other individuals, copartnerships, private, public or quasipublic 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 2. Tax Declaration No. 7640 3. Tax Declaration No. 7641 4. Tax Declaration No. 7642 Radio station building Machinery shed Radio relay station tower and accessories (100 feet high) 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 Decision7 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 Decision10 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 nonimpairment 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 Decision12 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 taxexempt 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 onreal 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 10220 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 CAG.R. SP No. 47446 dated 29 March 2000. SO ORDERED.

Republic SUPREME Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. L-46245 May 31, 1982

of

the

Philippines COURT

MERALCO SECURITIES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF LAGUNA and PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF LAGUNA, respondents.

AQUINO, J.: In this special civil action of certiorari, Meralco Securities Industrial Corporation assails the decision of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (composed of the Secretary of Finance as chairman and the Secretaries of Justice and Local Government and Community Development as members) dated May 6, 1976, holding that Meralco Securities' oil pipeline is subject to realty tax. The record reveals that pursuant to a pipeline concession issued under the Petroleum Act of 1949, Republic Act No. 387, Meralco Securities installed from Batangas to Manila a pipeline system consisting of cylindrical steel pipes joined together and buried not less than one meter below the surface along the shoulder of the public highway. The portion passing through Laguna is about thirty kilometers long. The pipes for white oil products measure fourteen inches in diameter by thirty-six feet with a maximum capacity of 75,000 barrels daily. The pipes for fuel and black oil measure sixteen inches by forty-eight feet with a maximum capacity of 100,000 barrels daily. The pipes are embedded in the soil and are firmly and solidly welded together so as to preclude breakage or damage thereto and prevent leakage or seepage of the oil. The valves are welded to the pipes so as to make the pipeline system one single piece of property from end to end. In order to repair, replace, remove or transfer segments of the pipeline, the pipes have to be cold-cut by means of a rotary hard-metal pipe-cutter after digging or excavating them out of the ground where they are buried. In points where the pipeline traversed rivers or creeks, the pipes were laid beneath the bed thereof. Hence, the pipes are permanently attached to the land. However, Meralco Securities notes that segments of the pipeline can be moved from one place to another as shown in the permit issued by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications which permit provides that the government reserves the right to require the removal or transfer of the pipes by and at the concessionaire's expense should they be affected by any road repair or improvement.

Pursuant to the Assessment Law, Commonwealth Act No. 470, the provincial assessor of Laguna treated the pipeline as real property and issued Tax Declarations Nos. 6535-6537, San Pedro; 7473-7478, Cabuyao; 7967-7971, Sta. Rosa; 9882-9885, Bian and 15806-15810, Calamba, containing the assessed values of portions of the pipeline. Meralco Securities appealed the assessments to the Board of Assessment Appeals of Laguna composed of the register of deeds as chairman and the provincial auditor as member. That board in its decision of June 18, 1975 upheld the assessments (pp. 47-49, Rollo). Meralco Securities brought the case to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals. As already stated, that Board, composed of Acting Secretary of Finance Pedro M. Almanzor as chairman and Secretary of Justice Vicente Abad Santos and Secretary of Local Government and Community Development Jose Roo as members, ruled that the pipeline is subject to realty tax (p. 40, Rollo). A copy of that decision was served on Meralco Securities' counsel on August 27, 1976. Section 36 of the Real Property Tax Code, Presidential Decree No. 464, which took effect on June 1, 1974, provides that the Board's decision becomes final and executory after the lapse of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of the decision by the appellant. Under Rule III of the amended rules of procedure of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (70 O.G. 10085), a party may ask for the reconsideration of the Board's decision within fifteen days after receipt. On September 7, 1976 (the eleventh day), Meralco Securities filed its motion for reconsideration. Secretary of Finance Cesar Virata and Secretary Roo (Secretary Abad Santos abstained) denied the motion in a resolution dated December 2, 1976, a copy of which was received by appellant's counsel on May 24, 1977 (p. 4, Rollo). On June 6, 1977, Meralco Securities filed the instant petition for certiorari. The Solicitor General contends that certiorari is not proper in this case because the Board acted within its jurisdiction and did not gravely abuse its discretion and Meralco Securities was not denied due process of law. Meralco Securities explains that because the Court of Tax Appeals has no jurisdiction to review the decision of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals and because no judicial review of the Board's decision is provided for in the Real Property Tax Code, Meralco Securities' recourse is to file a petition for certiorari. We hold that certiorari was properly availed of in this case. It is a writ issued by a superior court to an inferior court, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions whereby the record of a particular case is ordered to be elevated for review and correction in matters of law (14 C.J.S. 121-122; 14 Am Jur. 2nd 777). The rule is that as to administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial power there is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by the statute (73 C.J.S. 506, note 56). "The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect substantial rights of parties affected by its decisions" (73 C.J.S. 507, See. 165). The

review is a part of the system of checks and balances which is a limitation on the separation of powers and which forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudications. Judicial review of the decision of an official or administrative agency exercising quasi-judicial functions is proper in cases of lack of jurisdiction, error of law, grave abuse of discretion, fraud or collusion or in case the administrative decision is corrupt, arbitrary or capricious (Mafinco Trading Corporation vs. Ople, L-37790, March 25, 1976, 70 SCRA 139, 158; San Miguel Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor, L-39195, May 16, 1975, 64 SCRA 56, 60, Mun. Council of Lemery vs. Prov. Board of Batangas, 56 Phil. 260, 268). The Central Board of Assessment Appeals, in confirming the ruling of the provincial assessor and the provincial board of assessment appeals that Meralco Securities' pipeline is subject to realty tax, reasoned out that the pipes are machinery or improvements, as contemplated in the Assessment Law and the Real Property Tax Code; that they do not fall within the category of property exempt from realty tax under those laws; that articles 415 and 416 of the Civil Code, defining real and personal property, have no application to this case; that even under article 415, the steel pipes can be regarded as realty because they are constructions adhered to the soil and things attached to the land in a fixed manner and that Meralco Securities is not exempt from realty tax under the Petroleum Law (pp. 36-40). Meralco Securities insists that its pipeline is not subject to realty tax because it is not real property within the meaning of article 415. This contention is not sustainable under the provisions of the Assessment Law, the Real Property Tax Code and the Civil Code. Section 2 of the Assessment Law provides that the realty tax is due "on real property, including land, buildings, machinery, and other improvements" not specifically exempted in section 3 thereof. This provision is reproduced with some modification in the Real Property Tax Code which provides: SEC. 38. Incidence of Real Property Tax. There shall be levied, assessed and collected in all provinces, cities and municipalities an annual ad valorem tax on real property, such as land, buildings, machinery and other improvements affixed or attached to real property not hereinafter specifically exempted. * It is incontestable that the pipeline of Meralco Securities does not fall within any of the classes of exempt real property enumerated in section 3 of the Assessment Law and section 40 of the Real Property Tax Code. Pipeline means a line of pipe connected to pumps, valves and control devices for conveying liquids, gases or finely divided solids. It is a line of pipe running upon or in the earth, carrying with it the right to the use of the soil in which it is placed (Note 21[10],54 C.J.S. 561). Article 415[l] and [3] provides that real property may consist of constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil and everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking the material or deterioration of the object. The pipeline system in question is indubitably a construction adhering to the soil (Exh. B, p. 39, Rollo). It is attached to the land in such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom without dismantling the steel pipes which were welded to form the pipeline.

Insofar as the pipeline uses valves, pumps and control devices to maintain the flow of oil, it is in a sense machinery within the meaning of the Real Property Tax Code. It should be borne in mind that what are being characterized as real property are not the steel pipes but the pipeline system as a whole. Meralco Securities has apparently two pipeline systems. A pipeline for conveying petroleum has been regarded as real property for tax purposes (Miller County Highway, etc., Dist. vs. Standard Pipe Line Co., 19 Fed. 2nd 3; Board of Directors of Red River Levee Dist. No. 1 of Lafayette County, Ark vs. R. F. C., 170 Fed. 2nd 430; 50 C. J. 750, note 86). The other contention of Meralco Securities is that the Petroleum Law exempts it from the payment of realty taxes. The alleged exemption is predicated on the following provisions of that law which exempt Meralco Securities from local taxes and make it liable for taxes of general application: ART. 102. Work obligations, taxes, royalties not to be changed. Work obligations, special taxes and royalties which are fixed by the provisions of this Act or by the concession for any of the kinds of concessions to which this Act relates, are considered as inherent on such concessions after they are granted, and shall not be increased or decreased during the life of the concession to which they apply; nor shall any other special taxes or levies be applied to such concessions, nor shall 0concessionaires under this Act be subject to any provincial, municipal or other local taxes or levies;nor shall any sales tax be charged on any petroleum produced from the concession or portion thereof, manufactured by the concessionaire and used in the working of his concession. All such concessionaires, however, shall be subject to such taxes as are of general application in addition to taxes and other levies specifically provided in this Act. Meralco Securities argues that the realty tax is a local tax or levy and not a tax of general application. This argument is untenable because the realty tax has always been imposed by the lawmaking body and later by the President of the Philippines in the exercise of his lawmaking powers, as shown in section 342 et seq. of the Revised Administrative Code, Act No. 3995, Commonwealth Act No. 470 and Presidential Decree No. 464. The realty tax is enforced throughout the Philippines and not merely in a particular municipality or city but the proceeds of the tax accrue to the province, city, municipality and barrio where the realty taxed is situated (Sec. 86, P.D. No. 464). In contrast, a local tax is imposed by the municipal or city council by virtue of the Local Tax Code, Presidential Decree No. 231, which took effect on July 1, 1973 (69 O.G. 6197). We hold that the Central Board of Assessment Appeals did not act with grave abuse of discretion, did not commit any error of law and acted within its jurisdiction in sustaining the holding of the provincial assessor and the local board of assessment appeals that Meralco Securities' pipeline system in Laguna is subject to realty tax. WHEREFORE, the questioned decision and resolution are affirmed. The petition is dismissed. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Republic SUPREME Manila SECOND DIVISION

of

the

Philippines COURT

G.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.

Republic SUPREME Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-24756

of

the

Philippines COURT

October 31, 1968 BAGUIO, plaintiff-appellee,

CITY OF vs. FORTUNATO DE LEON, defendant-appellant. The City Attorney for Fortunato de Leon for and in his own behalf as defendant-appellant. FERNANDO, J.:

plaintiff-appellee.

In this appeal, a lower court decision upholding the validity of an ordinance 1 of the City of Baguio imposing a license fee on any person, firm, entity or corporation doing business in the City of Baguio is assailed by defendant-appellant Fortunato de Leon. He was held liable as a real estate dealer with a property therein worth more than P10,000, but not in excess of P50,000, and therefore obligated to pay under such ordinance the P50 annual fee. That is the principal question. In addition, there has been a firm and unyielding insistence by defendantappellant of the lack of jurisdiction of the City Court of Baguio, where the suit originated, a complaint having been filed against him by the City Attorney of Baguio for his failure to pay the amount of P300 as license fee covering the period from the first quarter of 1958 to the fourth quarter of 1962, allegedly, inspite of repeated demands. Nor was defendant-appellant agreeable to such a suit being instituted by the City Treasurer without the consent of the Mayor, which for him was indispensable. The lower court was of a different mind. In its decision of December 19, 1964, it declared the above ordinance as amended, valid and subsisting, and held defendant-appellant liable for the fees therein prescribed as a real estate dealer. Hence, this appeal. Assume the validity of such ordinance, and there would be no question about the liability of defendant-appellant for the above license fee, it being shown in the partial stipulation of facts, that he was "engaged in the rental of his property in Baguio" deriving income therefrom during the period covered by the first quarter of 1958 to the fourth quarter of 1962.

The source of authority for the challenged ordinance is supplied by Republic Act No. 329, amending the city charter of Baguio2 empowering it to fix the license fee and regulate "businesses, trades and occupations as may be established or practiced in the City." Unless it can be shown then that such a grant of authority is not broad enough to justify the enactment of the ordinance now assailed, the decision appealed from must be affirmed. The task confronting defendant-appellant, therefore, was far from easy. Why he failed is understandable, considering that even a cursory reading of the above amendment readily discloses that the enactment of the ordinance in question finds support in the power thus conferred. Nor is the question raised by him as to the validity thereof novel in character. In Medina v. City of Baguio,3 the effect of the amendatory section insofar as it would expand the previous power vested by the city charter was clarified in these terms: "Appellants apparently have in mind section 2553, paragraph (c) of the Revised Administrative Code, which empowers the City of Baguio merely to impose a license fee for the purpose of rating the business that may be established in the city. The power as thus conferred is indeed limited, as it does not include the power to levy a tax. But on July 15, 1948, Republic Act No. 329 was enacted amending the charter of said city and adding to its power to license the power to tax and to regulate. And it is precisely having in view this amendment that Ordinance No. 99 was approved in order to increase the revenues of the city. In our opinion, the amendment above adverted to empowers the city council not only to impose a license fee but also to levy a tax for purposes of revenue, more so when in amending section 2553 (b), the phrase 'as provided by law' has been removed by section 2 of Republic Act No. 329. The city council of Baguio, therefore, has now the power to tax, to license and to regulate provided that the subjects affected be one of those included in the charter. In this sense, the ordinance under consideration cannot be considered ultra vires whether its purpose be to levy a tax or impose a license fee. The terminology used is of no consequence." It would be an undue and unwarranted emasculation of the above power thus granted if defendant-appellant were to be sustained in his contention that no such statutory authority for the enactment of the challenged ordinance could be discerned from the language used in the amendatory act. That is about all that needs to be said in upholding the lower court, considering that the City of Baguio was not devoid of authority in enacting this particular ordinance. As mentioned at the outset, however, defendant-appellant likewise alleged procedural missteps and asserted that the challenged ordinance suffered from certain constitutional infirmities. To such points raised by him, we shall now turn. 1. Defendant-appellant makes much of the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the City Court of Baguio in the suit for the collection of the real estate dealer's fee from him in the amount of P300. He contended before the lower court, and it is his contention now, that while the amount of P300 sought was within the jurisdiction of the City Court of Baguio where this action originated, since the principal issue was the legality and constitutionality of the challenged ordinance, it is not such City Court but the Court of First Instance that has original jurisdiction. There is here a misapprehension of the Judiciary Act. The City Court has jurisdiction. Only recently, on September 7, 1968 to be exact, we rejected a contention similar in character in Nemenzo v. Sabillano.4 The plaintiff in that case filed a claim for the payment of his salary before the Justice of the Peace Court of Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur. The question of jurisdiction was raised; the defendant Mayor asserted that what was in issue was the

enforcement of the decision of the Commission of Civil Service; the Justice of the Peace Court was thus without jurisdiction to try the case. The above plea was curtly dismissed by Us, as what was involved was "an ordinary money claim" and therefore "within the original jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court where it was filed, considering the amount involved." Such is likewise the situation here. Moreover, in City of Manila v. Bugsuk Lumber Co.,5 a suit to collect from a defendant this license fee corresponding to the years 1951 and 1952 was filed with the Municipal Court of Manila, in view of the amount involved. The thought that the municipal court lacked jurisdiction apparently was not even in the minds of the parties and did not receive any consideration by this Court. Evidently, the fear is entertained by defendant-appellant that whenever a constitutional question is raised, it is the Court of First Instance that should have original jurisdiction on the matter. It does not admit of doubt, however, that what confers jurisdiction is the amount set forth in the complaint. Here, the sum sought to be recovered was clearly within the jurisdiction of the City Court of Baguio. Nor could it be plausibly maintained that the validity of such ordinance being open to question as a defense against its enforcement from one adversely affected, the matter should be elevated to the Court of First Instance. For the City Court could rely on the presumption of the validity of such ordinance,6 and the mere fact, however, that in the answer to such a complaint a constitutional question was raised did not suffice to oust the City Court of its jurisdiction. The suit remains one for collection, the lack of validity being only a defense to such an attempt at recovery. Since the City Court is possessed of judicial power and it is likewise axiomatic that the judicial power embraces the ascertainment of facts and the application of the law, the Constitution as the highest law superseding any statute or ordinance in conflict therewith, it cannot be said that a City Court is bereft of competence to proceed on the matter. In the exercise of such delicate power, however, the admonition of Cooley on inferior tribunals is well worth remembering. Thus: "It must be evident to any one that the power to declare a legislative enactment void is one which the judge, conscious of the fallibility of the human judgment, will shrink from exercising in any case where he can conscientiously and with due regard to duty and official oath decline the responsibility." 7 While it remains undoubted that such a power to pass on the validity of an ordinance alleged to infringe certain constitutional rights of a litigant exists, still it should be exercised with due care and circumspection, considering not only the presumption of validity but also the relatively modest rank of a city court in the judicial hierarchy. 2. To repeat the challenged ordinance cannot be considered ultra vires as there is more than ample statutory authority for the enactment thereof. Nonetheless, its validity on constitutional grounds is challenged because of the allegation that it imposed double taxation, which is repugnant to the due process clause, and that it violated the requirement of uniformity. We do not view the matter thus. As to why double taxation is not violative of due process, Justice Holmes made clear in this language: "The objection to the taxation as double may be laid down on one side. ... The 14th Amendment [the due process clause] no more forbids double taxation than it does doubling the amount of a tax, short of confiscation or proceedings unconstitutional on other grounds." 8With that decision rendered at a time when American sovereignty in the Philippines was recognized, it possesses more than just a persuasive effect. To some, it delivered the coup de grace to the bogey of double taxation as a constitutional bar to the exercise of the taxing power. It would

seem though that in the United States, as with us, its ghost as noted by an eminent critic, still stalks the juridical state. In a 1947 decision, however,9 we quoted with approval this excerpt from a leading American decision: 10 "Where, as here, Congress has clearly expressed its intention, the statute must be sustained even though double taxation results." At any rate, it has been expressly affirmed by us that such an "argument against double taxation may not be invoked where one tax is imposed by the state and the other is imposed by the city ..., it being widely recognized that there is nothing inherently obnoxious in the requirement that license fees or taxes be exacted with respect to the same occupation, calling or activity by both the state and the political subdivisions thereof."11 The above would clearly indicate how lacking in merit is this argument based on double taxation. Now, as to the claim that there was a violation of the rule of uniformity established by the constitution. According to the challenged ordinance, a real estate dealer who leases property worth P50,000 or above must pay an annual fee of P100. If the property is worth P10,000 but not over P50,000, then he pays P50 and P24 if the value is less than P10,000. On its face, therefore, the above ordinance cannot be assailed as violative of the constitutional requirement of uniformity. In Philippine Trust Company v. Yatco,12 Justice Laurel, speaking for the Court, stated: "A tax is considered uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject may be found." There was no occasion in that case to consider the possible effect on such a constitutional requirement where there is a classification. The opportunity came in Eastern Theatrical Co. v. Alfonso.13 Thus: "Equality and uniformity in taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable and natural classifications for purposes of taxation; ..." About two years later, Justice Tuason, speaking for this Court in Manila Race Horses Trainers Assn. v. De la Fuente14 incorporated the above excerpt in his opinion and continued: "Taking everything into account, the differentiation against which the plaintiffs complain conforms to the practical dictates of justice and equity and is not discriminatory within the meaning of the Constitution." To satisfy this requirement then, all that is needed as held in another case decided two years later, 15 is that the statute or ordinance in question "applies equally to all persons, firms and corporations placed in similar situation." This Court is on record as accepting the view in a leading American case16 that "inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation."17 It is thus apparent from the above that in much the same way that the plea of double taxation is unavailing, the allegation that there was a violation of the principle of uniformity is inherently lacking in persuasiveness. There is no need to pass upon the other allegations to assail the validity of the above ordinance, it being maintained that the license fees therein imposed "is excessive, unreasonable and oppressive" and that there is a failure to observe the mandate of equal protection. A reading of the ordinance will readily disclose their inherent lack of plausibility. 3. That would dispose of all the errors assigned, except the last two, which would predicate a grievance on the complaint having been started by the City Treasurer rather than the City Mayor of Baguio. These alleged errors, as was the case with the others assigned, lack merit.

In much the same way that an act of a department head of the national government, performed within the limits of his authority, is presumptively the act of the President unless reprobated or disapproved,18 similarly the act of the City Treasurer, whose position is roughly analogous, may be assumed to carry the seal of approval of the City Mayor unless repudiated or set aside. This should be the case considering that such city official is called upon to see to it that revenues due the City are collected. When administrative steps are futile and unavailing, given the stubbornness and obduracy of a taxpayer, convinced in good faith that no tax was due, judicial remedy may be resorted to by him. It would be a reflection on the state of the law if such fidelity to duty would be met by condemnation rather than commendation. So, much for the analytical approach. The conclusion thus reached has a reinforcement that comes to it from the functional and pragmatic test. If a city treasurer has to await the nod from the city mayor before a municipal ordinance is enforced, then opportunity exists for favoritism and undue discrimination to come into play. Whatever valid reason may exist as to why one taxpayer is to be accorded a treatment denied another, the suspicion is unavoidable that such a manifestation of official favor could have been induced by unnamed but not unknown consideration. It would not be going too far to assert that even defendant-appellant would find no satisfaction in such a sad state of affairs. The more desirable legal doctrine therefore, on the assumption that a choice exists, is one that would do away with such temptation on the part of both taxpayer and public official alike. WHEREFORE, the lower court decision of December 19, 1964, is hereby affirmed. Costs against defendant-appellant. Concepcion, CJ., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Capistrano, JJ., concur. Zaldivar, J., is on leave.

Republic SUPREME Manila EN BANC

of

the

Philippines COURT

G.R. No. 115455 August 25, 1994 ARTURO vs. THE SECRETARY OF REVENUE, respondents. M. FINANCE and THE TOLENTINO, petitioner, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

G.R. No. 115525 August 25, 1994

JUAN T. DAVID, petitioner, vs. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., as Executive Secretary; ROBERTO DE OCAMPO, as Secretary of Finance; LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO, as Commissioner of Internal Revenue; and their AUTHORIZED AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES, respondents. G.R. No. 115543 August 25, 1994 RAUL S. ROCO and the INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners, vs. THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE; THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, respondents. G.R. No. 115544 August 25, 1994 PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE, INC.; EGP PUBLISHING CO., INC.; PUBLISHING CORPORATION; PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC.; JOSE L. PAVIA; and OFELIA L. DIMALANTA, petitioners, vs. HON. LIWAYWAY V. CHATO, in her capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue; HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., in his capacity as Executive Secretary; and HON. ROBERTO B. DE OCAMPO, in his capacity as Secretary of Finance, respondents. G.R. No. 115754 August 25, 1994 CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATIONS, INC., (CREBA), petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent. G.R. No. 115781 August 25, 1994 KILOSBAYAN, INC., JOVITO R. SALONGA, CIRILO A. RIGOS, ERME CAMBA, EMILIO C. CAPULONG, JR., JOSE T. APOLO, EPHRAIM TENDERO, FERNANDO SANTIAGO, JOSE ABCEDE, CHRISTINE TAN, FELIPE L. GOZON, RAFAEL G. FERNANDO, RAOUL V. VICTORINO, JOSE CUNANAN, QUINTIN S. DOROMAL, MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD, INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. ("MABINI"), FREEDOM FROM DEBT COALITION, INC., PHILIPPINE BIBLE SOCIETY, INC., and WIGBERTO TAADA,petitioners, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondents. G.R. No. 115852 August 25, 1994 PHILIPPINE vs. THE SECRETARY OF REVENUE, respondents. AIRLINES, FINANCE, and COMMISSIONER INC., petitioner, OF INTERNAL

G.R. No. 115873 August 25, 1994

COOPERATIVE UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners, vs. HON. LIWAYWAY V. CHATO, in her capacity as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., in his capacity as Executive Secretary, and HON. ROBERTO B. DE OCAMPO, in his capacity as Secretary of Finance, respondents. G.R. No. 115931 August 25, 1994 PHILIPPINE EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, INC., and ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE BOOK-SELLERS, petitioners, vs. HON. ROBERTO B. DE OCAMPO, as the Secretary of Finance; HON. LIWAYWAY V. CHATO, as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and HON. GUILLERMO PARAYNO, JR., in his capacity as the Commissioner of Customs, respondents. Arturo M. Tolentino for and in his behalf. Donna Celeste D. Feliciano and Juan T. David for petitioners in G.R. No. 115525. Roco, Bunag, Kapunan, Migallos and Jardeleza for petitioner R.S. Roco. Villaranza and Cruz for petitioners in G.R. No. 115544. Carlos A. Raneses and Manuel M. Serrano for petitioner in G.R. No. 115754. Salonga, Hernandez & Allado for Freedon From Debts Coalition, Inc. & Phil. Bible Society. Estelito P. Mendoza for petitioner in G.R. No. 115852. Panganiban, Benitez, Parlade, Africa & Barinaga Law Offices for petitioners in G.R. No. 115873. R.B. Rodriguez & Associates for petitioners in G.R. No. 115931. Reve A.V. Saguisag for MABINI.

MENDOZA, J.: The value-added tax (VAT) is levied on the sale, barter or exchange of goods and properties as well as on the sale or exchange of services. It is equivalent to 10% of the gross selling price or gross value in money of goods or properties sold, bartered or exchanged or of the gross receipts from the sale or exchange of services. Republic Act No. 7716 seeks to widen the tax base of the existing VAT system and enhance its administration by amending the National Internal Revenue Code.

These are various suits for certiorari and prohibition, challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7716 on various grounds summarized in the resolution of July 6, 1994 of this Court, as follows: I. Procedural Issues: A. Does Republic Act No. 7716 violate Art. VI, 24 of the Constitution? B. Does it violate Art. VI, 26(2) of the Constitution? C. What is the extent of the power of the Bicameral Conference Committee? II. Substantive Issues: A. Does the law violate the following provisions in the Bill of Rights (Art. III)? 1. 1 2. 4 3. 5 4. 10 B. Does the law violate the following other provisions of the Constitution? 1. Art. VI, 28(1) 2. Art. VI, 28(3) These questions will be dealt in the order they are stated above. As will presently be explained not all of these questions are judicially cognizable, because not all provisions of the Constitution are self executing and, therefore, judicially enforceable. The other departments of the government are equally charged with the enforcement of the Constitution, especially the provisions relating to them. I. PROCEDURAL ISSUES The contention of petitioners is that in enacting Republic Act No. 7716, or the Expanded ValueAdded Tax Law, Congress violated the Constitution because, although H. No. 11197 had originated in the House of Representatives, it was not passed by the Senate but was simply consolidated with the Senate version (S. No. 1630) in the Conference Committee to produce the bill which the President signed into law. The following provisions of the Constitution are cited in support of the proposition that because Republic Act No. 7716 was passed in this manner, it did not originate in the House of Representatives and it has not thereby become a law: Art. VI, 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. Id., 26(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. It appears that on various dates between July 22, 1992 and August 31, 1993, several bills 1 were introduced in the House of Representatives seeking to amend certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code relative to the value-added tax or VAT. These bills were referred to the House Ways and Means Committee which recommended for approval a substitute measure, H. No. 11197, entitled AN ACT RESTRUCTURING THE VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT) SYSTEM TO WIDEN ITS TAX BASE AND ENHANCE ITS ADMINISTRATION, AMENDING FOR THESE PURPOSES SECTIONS 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 AND 110 OF TITLE IV, 112, 115 AND 116 OF TITLE V, AND 236, 237 AND 238 OF TITLE IX, AND REPEALING SECTIONS 113 AND 114 OF TITLE V, ALL OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED The bill (H. No. 11197) was considered on second reading starting November 6, 1993 and, on November 17, 1993, it was approved by the House of Representatives after third and final reading. It was sent to the Senate on November 23, 1993 and later referred by that body to its Committee on Ways and Means. On February 7, 1994, the Senate Committee submitted its report recommending approval of S. No. 1630, entitled AN ACT RESTRUCTURING THE VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT) SYSTEM TO WIDEN ITS TAX BASE AND ENHANCE ITS ADMINISTRATION, AMENDING FOR THESE PURPOSES SECTIONS 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, AND 110 OF TITLE IV, 112 OF TITLE V, AND 236, 237, AND 238 OF TITLE IX, AND REPEALING SECTIONS 113, 114 and 116 OF TITLE V, ALL OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES It was stated that the bill was being submitted "in substitution of Senate Bill No. 1129, taking into consideration P.S. Res. No. 734 and H.B. No. 11197." On February 8, 1994, the Senate began consideration of the bill (S. No. 1630). It finished debates on the bill and approved it on second reading on March 24, 1994. On the same day, it approved the bill on third reading by the affirmative votes of 13 of its members, with one abstention.

H. No. 11197 and its Senate version (S. No. 1630) were then referred to a conference committee which, after meeting four times (April 13, 19, 21 and 25, 1994), recommended that "House Bill No. 11197, in consolidation with Senate Bill No. 1630, be approved in accordance with the attached copy of the bill as reconciled and approved by the conferees." The Conference Committee bill, entitled "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," was thereafter approved by the House of Representatives on April 27, 1994 and by the Senate on May 2, 1994. The enrolled bill was then presented to the President of the Philippines who, on May 5, 1994, signed it. It became Republic Act No. 7716. On May 12, 1994, Republic Act No. 7716 was published in two newspapers of general circulation and, on May 28, 1994, it took effect, although its implementation was suspended until June 30, 1994 to allow time for the registration of business entities. It would have been enforced on July 1, 1994 but its enforcement was stopped because the Court, by the vote of 11 to 4 of its members, granted a temporary restraining order on June 30, 1994. First. Petitioners' contention is that Republic Act No. 7716 did not "originate exclusively" in the House of Representatives as required by Art. VI, 24 of the Constitution, because it is in fact the result of the consolidation of two distinct bills, H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630. In this connection, petitioners point out that although Art. VI, SS 24 was adopted from the American Federal Constitution, 2 it is notable in two respects: the verb "shall originate" is qualified in the Philippine Constitution by the word "exclusively" and the phrase "as on other bills" in the American version is omitted. This means, according to them, that to be considered as having originated in the House, Republic Act No. 7716 must retain the essence of H. No. 11197. This argument will not bear analysis. 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. The possibility of a third version by the conference committee will be discussed later. 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. The contention that the constitutional design is to limit the Senate's power in respect of revenue bills in order to compensate for the grant to the Senate of the treaty-ratifying power 3 and thereby equalize its powers and those of the House overlooks the fact that the powers being compared are different. We are dealing here with the legislative power which under the Constitution is vested not in any particular chamber but in the Congress of the Philippines, consisting of "a Senate and a House of Representatives." 4 The exercise of the treaty-ratifying power is not the exercise of legislative power. It is the exercise of a check on the executive power. There is, therefore, no justification for comparing the legislative powers of the House and of the Senate on the basis of the possession of such nonlegislative power by the Senate. The possession of a similar power by the U.S. Senate 5 has never been thought of as giving it more legislative powers than the House of Representatives.

In the United States, the validity of a provision ( 37) imposing an ad valorem tax based on the weight of vessels, which the U.S. Senate had inserted in the Tariff Act of 1909, was upheld against the claim that the provision was a revenue bill which originated in the Senate in contravention of Art. I, 7 of the U.S. Constitution. 6 Nor is the power to amend limited to adding a provision or two in a revenue bill emanating from the House. The U.S. Senate has gone so far as changing the whole of bills following the enacting clause and substituting its own versions. In 1883, for example, it struck out everything after the enacting clause of a tariff bill and wrote in its place its own measure, and the House subsequently accepted the amendment. The U.S. Senate likewise added 847 amendments to what later became the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909; it dictated the schedules of the Tariff Act of 1921; it rewrote an extensive tax revision bill in the same year and recast most of the tariff bill of 1922. 7 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. It is insisted, however, that S. No. 1630 was passed not in substitution of H. No. 11197 but of another Senate bill (S. No. 1129) earlier filed and that what the Senate did was merely to "take [H. No. 11197] into consideration" in enacting S. No. 1630. There is really no difference between the Senate preserving H. No. 11197 up to the enacting clause and then writing its own version following the enacting clause (which, it would seem, petitioners admit is an amendment by substitution), and, on the other hand, separately presenting a bill of its own on the same subject matter. In either case the result are two bills on the same subject. 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. Nor does the Constitution prohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House, so long as action by the Senate as a body is withheld pending receipt of the House bill. The Court cannot, therefore, understand the alarm expressed over the fact that on March 1, 1993, eight months before the House passed H. No. 11197, S. No. 1129 had been filed in the Senate. After all it does not appear that the Senate ever considered it. It was only after the Senate had received H. No. 11197 on November 23, 1993 that the process of legislation in respect of it began with the referral to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means of H. No. 11197 and the submission by the Committee on February 7, 1994 of S. No. 1630. For that matter, if the question were simply the priority in the time of filing of bills, the fact is that it was in the House that a bill (H. No. 253) to amend the VAT law was first filed on July 22, 1992. Several other bills had been filed in the House before S. No. 1129 was filed in the Senate, and H. No. 11197 was only a substitute of those earlier bills. Second. Enough has been said to show that it was within the power of the Senate to propose S. No. 1630. We now pass to the next argument of petitioners that S. No. 1630 did not pass three readings on separate days as required by the Constitution 8 because the second and third readings were done on the same day, March 24, 1994. But this was because on February 24, 1994 9 and again on March 22, 1994, 10 the President had certified S. No. 1630 as urgent. The presidential certification dispensed with the requirement not only of printing but also that of reading the bill on separate days. The phrase "except when the President certifies to the

necessity of its immediate enactment, etc." in Art. VI, 26(2) qualifies the two stated conditions before a bill can become a law: (i) the bill has passed three readings on separate days and (ii) it has been printed in its final form and distributed three days before it is finally approved. In other words, the "unless" clause must be read in relation to the "except" clause, because the two are really coordinate clauses of the same sentence. To construe the "except" clause as simply dispensing with the second requirement in the "unless" clause ( i.e., printing and distribution three days before final approval) would not only violate the rules of grammar. It would also negate the very premise of the "except" clause: the necessity of securing the immediate enactment of a bill which is certified in order to meet a public calamity or emergency. For if it is only the printing that is dispensed with by presidential certification, the time saved would be so negligible as to be of any use in insuring immediate enactment. It may well be doubted whether doing away with the necessity of printing and distributing copies of the bill three days before the third reading would insure speedy enactment of a law in the face of an emergency requiring the calling of a special election for President and Vice-President. Under the Constitution such a law is required to be made within seven days of the convening of Congress in emergency session. 11 That upon the certification of a bill by the President the requirement of three readings on separate days and of printing and distribution can be dispensed with is supported by the weight of legislative practice. For example, the bill defining the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court which, in consolidation with the Senate version, became Republic Act No. 5440, was passed on second and third readings in the House of Representatives on the same day (May 14, 1968) after the bill had been certified by the President as urgent. 12 There is, therefore, no merit in the contention that presidential certification dispenses only with the requirement for the printing of the bill and its distribution three days before its passage but not with the requirement of three readings on separate days, also. It is nonetheless urged that the certification of the bill in this case was invalid because there was no emergency, the condition stated in the certification of a "growing budget deficit" not being an unusual condition in this country. It is noteworthy that no member of the Senate saw fit to controvert the reality of the factual basis of the certification. To the contrary, by passing S. No. 1630 on second and third readings on March 24, 1994, the Senate accepted the President's certification. Should such certification be now reviewed by this Court, especially when no evidence has been shown that, because S. No. 1630 was taken up on second and third readings on the same day, the members of the Senate were deprived of the time needed for the study of a vital piece of legislation? The sufficiency of the factual basis of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus or declaration of martial law under Art. VII, 18, or the existence of a national emergency justifying the delegation of extraordinary powers to the President under Art. VI, 23(2), is subject to judicial review because basic rights of individuals may be at hazard. But the factual basis of presidential certification of bills, which involves doing away with procedural requirements designed to insure that bills are duly considered by members of Congress, certainly should elicit a different standard of review.

Petitioners also invite attention to the fact that the President certified S. No. 1630 and not H. No. 11197. That is because S. No. 1630 was what the Senate was considering. When the matter was before the House, the President likewise certified H. No. 9210 the pending in the House. Third. Finally it is contended that the bill which became Republic Act No. 7716 is the bill which the Conference Committee prepared by consolidating H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630. It is claimed that the Conference Committee report included provisions not found in either the House bill or the Senate bill and that these provisions were "surreptitiously" inserted by the Conference Committee. Much is made of the fact that in the last two days of its session on April 21 and 25, 1994 the Committee met behind closed doors. We are not told, however, whether the provisions were not the result of the give and take that often mark the proceedings of conference committees. Nor is there anything unusual or extraordinary about the fact that the Conference Committee met in executive sessions. Often the only way to reach agreement on conflicting provisions is to meet behind closed doors, with only the conferees present. Otherwise, no compromise is likely to be made. The Court is not about to take the suggestion of a cabal or sinister motive attributed to the conferees on the basis solely of their "secret meetings" on April 21 and 25, 1994, nor read anything into the incomplete remarks of the members, marked in the transcript of stenographic notes by ellipses. The incomplete sentences are probably due to the stenographer's own limitations or to the incoherence that sometimes characterize conversations. William Safire noted some such lapses in recorded talks even by recent past Presidents of the United States. In any event, in the United States conference committees had been customarily held in executive sessions with only the conferees and their staffs in attendance. 13 Only in November 1975 was a new rule adopted requiring open sessions. Even then a majority of either chamber's conferees may vote in public to close the meetings. 14 As to the possibility of an entirely new bill emerging out of a Conference Committee, it has been explained: Under congressional rules of procedure, conference committees are not expected to make any material change in the measure at issue, either by deleting provisions to which both houses have already agreed or by inserting new provisions. But this is a difficult provision to enforce. Note the problem when one house amends a proposal originating in either house by striking out everything following the enacting clause and substituting provisions which make it an entirely new bill. The versions are now altogether different, permitting a conference committee to draft essentially a new bill. . . . 15 The result is a third version, which is considered an "amendment in the nature of a substitute," the only requirement for which being that the third version be germane to the subject of the House and Senate bills. 16 Indeed, this Court recently held that it is within the power of a conference committee to include in its report an entirely new provision that is not found either in the House bill or in the Senate bill. 17 If the committee can propose an amendment consisting of one or two provisions, there is no reason why it cannot propose several provisions, collectively considered as an "amendment in the nature of a substitute," so long as such amendment is germane to the subject of the bills before the committee. After all, its report was not final but needed the approval of both houses

of Congress to become valid as an act of the legislative department. The charge that in this case the Conference Committee acted as a third legislative chamber is thus without any basis. 18 Nonetheless, it is argued that under the respective Rules of the Senate and the House of Representatives a conference committee can only act on the differing provisions of a Senate bill and a House bill, and that contrary to these Rules the Conference Committee inserted provisions not found in the bills submitted to it. The following provisions are cited in support of this contention: Rules of the Senate Rule XII: 26. In the event that the Senate does not agree with the House of Representatives on the provision of any bill or joint resolution, the differences shall be settled by a conference committee of both Houses which shall meet within ten days after their composition. The President shall designate the members of the conference committee in accordance with subparagraph (c), Section 3 of Rule III. Each Conference Committee Report shall contain a detailed and sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in or amendments to the subject measure, and shall be signed by the conferees. The consideration of such report shall not be in order unless the report has been filed with the Secretary of the Senate and copies thereof have been distributed to the Members. (Emphasis added) Rules of the House of Representatives Rule XIV: 85. Conference Committee Reports. In the event that the House does not agree with the Senate on the amendments to any bill or joint resolution, the differences may be settled by conference committees of both Chambers. The consideration of conference committee reports shall always be in order, except when the journal is being read, while the roll is being called or the House is dividing on any question. Each of the pages of such reports shall be signed by the conferees. Each report shall contain a detailed, sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in or amendments to the subject measure. The consideration of such report shall not be in order unless copies thereof are distributed to the Members: Provided, That in the last fifteen days of each

session period it shall be deemed sufficient that three copies of the report, signed as above provided, are deposited in the office of the Secretary General. (Emphasis added) To be sure, nothing in the Rules limits a conference committee to a consideration of conflicting provisions. But Rule XLIV, 112 of the Rules of the Senate is cited to the effect that "If there is no Rule applicable to a specific case the precedents of the Legislative Department of the Philippines shall be resorted to, and as a supplement of these, the Rules contained in Jefferson's Manual." The following is then quoted from the Jefferson's Manual: The managers of a conference must confine themselves to the differences committed to them. . . and may not include subjects not within disagreements, even though germane to a question in issue. Note that, according to Rule XLIX, 112, in case there is no specific rule applicable, resort must be to the legislative practice. The Jefferson's Manual is resorted to only as supplement. It is common place in Congress that conference committee reports include new matters which, though germane, have not been committed to the committee. This practice was admitted by Senator Raul S. Roco, petitioner in G.R. No. 115543, during the oral argument in these cases. Whatever, then, may be provided in the Jefferson's Manual must be considered to have been modified by the legislative practice. If a change is desired in the practice it must be sought in Congress since this question is not covered by any constitutional provision but is only an internal rule of each house. Thus, Art. VI, 16(3) of the Constitution provides that "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. . . ." This observation applies to the other contention that the Rules of the two chambers were likewise disregarded in the preparation of the Conference Committee Report because the Report did not contain a "detailed and sufficiently explicit statement of changes in, or amendments to, the subject measure." The Report used brackets and capital letters to indicate the changes. This is a standard practice in bill-drafting. We cannot say that in using these marks and symbols the Committee violated the Rules of the Senate and the House. Moreover, this Court is not the proper forum for the enforcement of these internal Rules. To the contrary, as we have already ruled, "parliamentary rules are merely procedural and with their observance the courts have no concern." 19 Our concern is with the procedural requirements of the Constitution for the enactment of laws. As far as these requirements are concerned, we are satisfied that they have been faithfully observed in these cases. Nor is there any reason for requiring that the Committee's Report in these cases must have undergone three readings in each of the two houses. If that be the case, there would be no end to negotiation since each house may seek modifications of the compromise bill. The nature of the bill, therefore, requires that it be acted upon by each house on a "take it or leave it" basis, with the only alternative that if it is not approved by both houses, another conference committee must be appointed. But then again the result would still be a compromise measure that may not be wholly satisfying to both houses. Art. VI, 26(2) must, therefore, be construed as referring only to bills introduced for the first time in either house of Congress, not to the conference committee report. For if the purpose of requiring three readings is to give members of Congress time to study bills, it cannot be gainsaid that H. No. 11197 was passed in the House after three readings; that in the Senate it

was considered on first reading and then referred to a committee of that body; that although the Senate committee did not report out the House bill, it submitted a version (S. No. 1630) which it had prepared by "taking into consideration" the House bill; that for its part the Conference Committee consolidated the two bills and prepared a compromise version; that the Conference Committee Report was thereafter approved by the House and the Senate, presumably after appropriate study by their members. We cannot say that, as a matter of fact, the members of Congress were not fully informed of the provisions of the bill. The allegation that the Conference Committee usurped the legislative power of Congress is, in our view, without warrant in fact and in law. Fourth. Whatever doubts there may be as to the formal validity of Republic Act No. 7716 must be resolved in its favor. Our cases 20 manifest firm adherence to the rule that an enrolled copy of a bill is conclusive not only of its provisions but also of its due enactment. Not even claims that a proposed constitutional amendment was invalid because the requisite votes for its approval had not been obtained 21 or that certain provisions of a statute had been "smuggled" in the printing of the bill 22 have moved or persuaded us to look behind the proceedings of a coequal branch of the government. There is no reason now to depart from this rule. No claim is here made that the "enrolled bill" rule is absolute. In fact in one case 23 we "went behind" an enrolled bill and consulted the Journal to determine whether certain provisions of a statute had been approved by the Senate in view of the fact that the President of the Senate himself, who had signed the enrolled bill, admitted a mistake and withdrew his signature, so that in effect there was no longer an enrolled bill to consider. But where allegations that the constitutional procedures for the passage of bills have not been observed have no more basis than another allegation that the Conference Committee "surreptitiously" inserted provisions into a bill which it had prepared, we should decline the invitation to go behind the enrolled copy of the bill. To disregard the "enrolled bill" rule in such cases would be to disregard the respect due the other two departments of our government. Fifth. An additional attack on the formal validity of Republic Act No. 7716 is made by the Philippine Airlines, Inc., petitioner in G.R. No. 11582, namely, that it violates Art. VI, 26(1) which provides that "Every bill passed by Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof." It is contended that neither H. No. 11197 nor S. No. 1630 provided for removal of exemption of PAL transactions from the payment of the VAT and that this was made only in the Conference Committee bill which became Republic Act No. 7716 without reflecting this fact in its title. The title of Republic Act No. 7716 is: 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. Among the provisions of the NIRC amended is 103, which originally read: 103. Exempt transactions. The following shall be exempt from the valueadded tax:

.... (q) Transactions which are exempt under special laws or international agreements to which the Philippines is a signatory. Among the transactions exempted from the VAT were those of PAL because it was exempted under its franchise (P.D. No. 1590) from the payment of all "other taxes . . . now or in the near future," in consideration of the payment by it either of the corporate income tax or a franchise tax of 2%. As a result of its amendment by Republic Act No. 7716, 103 of the NIRC now provides: 103. Exempt transactions. The following shall be exempt from the valueadded tax: .... (q) Transactions which are exempt under special laws, except those granted under Presidential Decree Nos. 66, 529, 972, 1491, 1590. . . . The effect of the amendment is to remove the exemption granted to PAL, as far as the VAT is concerned. The question is whether this amendment of 103 of the NIRC is fairly embraced in the title of Republic Act No. 7716, although no mention is made therein of P.D. No. 1590 as among those which the statute amends. We think it is, since the title states that the purpose of the statute is to expand the VAT system, and one way of doing this is to widen its base by withdrawing some of the exemptions granted before. To insist that P.D. No. 1590 be mentioned in the title of the law, in addition to 103 of the NIRC, in which it is specifically referred to, would be to insist that the title of a bill should be a complete index of its content. The constitutional requirement that every bill passed by Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in its title is intended to prevent surprise upon the members of Congress and to inform the people of pending legislation so that, if they wish to, they can be heard regarding it. If, in the case at bar, petitioner did not know before that its exemption had been withdrawn, it is not because of any defect in the title but perhaps for the same reason other statutes, although published, pass unnoticed until some event somehow calls attention to their existence. Indeed, the title of Republic Act No. 7716 is not any more general than the title of PAL's own franchise under P.D. No. 1590, and yet no mention is made of its tax exemption. The title of P.D. No. 1590 is: AN ACT GRANTING A NEW FRANCHISE TO PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. TO ESTABLISH, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN AIR-TRANSPORT SERVICES IN THE PHILIPPINES AND BETWEEN THE PHILIPPINES AND OTHER COUNTRIES. The trend in our cases is to construe the constitutional requirement in such a manner that courts do not unduly interfere with the enactment of necessary legislation and to consider it sufficient if the title expresses the general subject of the statute and all its provisions are germane to the general subject thus expressed. 24

It is further contended that amendment of petitioner's franchise may only be made by special law, in view of 24 of P.D. No. 1590 which provides: This franchise, as amended, or any section or provision hereof may only be modified, amended, or repealed expressly by a special law or decree that shall specifically modify, amend, or repeal this franchise or any section or provision thereof. This provision is evidently intended to prevent the amendment of the franchise by mere implication resulting from the enactment of a later inconsistent statute, in consideration of the fact that a franchise is a contract which can be altered only by consent of the parties. Thus in Manila Railroad Co. v. Rafferty, 25 it was held that an Act of the U.S. Congress, which provided for the payment of tax on certain goods and articles imported into the Philippines, did not amend the franchise of plaintiff, which exempted it from all taxes except those mentioned in its franchise. It was held that a special law cannot be amended by a general law. In contrast, in the case at bar, Republic Act No. 7716 expressly amends PAL's franchise (P.D. No. 1590) by specifically excepting from the grant of exemptions from the VAT PAL's exemption under P.D. No. 1590. This is within the power of Congress to do under Art. XII, 11 of the Constitution, which provides that the grant of a franchise for the operation of a public utility is subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress when the common good so requires. II. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES A. Claims of Press Freedom, Freedom of Thought and Religious Freedom The Philippine Press Institute (PPI), petitioner in G.R. No. 115544, is a nonprofit organization of newspaper publishers established for the improvement of journalism in the Philippines. On the other hand, petitioner in G.R. No. 115781, the Philippine Bible Society (PBS), is a nonprofit organization engaged in the printing and distribution of bibles and other religious articles. Both petitioners claim violations of their rights under 4 and 5 of the Bill of Rights as a result of the enactment of the VAT Law. The PPI questions the law insofar as it has withdrawn the exemption previously granted to the press under 103 (f) of the NIRC. Although the exemption was subsequently restored by administrative regulation with respect to the circulation income of newspapers, the PPI presses its claim because of the possibility that the exemption may still be removed by mere revocation of the regulation of the Secretary of Finance. On the other hand, the PBS goes so far as to question the Secretary's power to grant exemption for two reasons: (1) The Secretary of Finance has no power to grant tax exemption because this is vested in Congress and requires for its exercise the vote of a majority of all its members 26 and (2) the Secretary's duty is to execute the law. 103 of the NIRC contains a list of transactions exempted from VAT. Among the transactions previously granted exemption were: (f) Printing, publication, importation or sale of books and any newspaper, magazine, review, or bulletin which appears at regular intervals with fixed prices

for subscription and sale and which is devoted principally to the publication of advertisements. Republic Act No. 7716 amended 103 by deleting (f) with the result that print media became subject to the VAT with respect to all aspects of their operations. Later, however, based on a memorandum of the Secretary of Justice, respondent Secretary of Finance issued Revenue Regulations No. 11-94, dated June 27, 1994, exempting the "circulation income of print media pursuant to 4 Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution guaranteeing against abridgment of freedom of the press, among others." The exemption of "circulation income" has left income from advertisements still subject to the VAT. It is unnecessary to pass upon the contention that the exemption granted is beyond the authority of the Secretary of Finance to give, in view of PPI's contention that even with the exemption of the circulation revenue of print media there is still an unconstitutional abridgment of press freedom because of the imposition of the VAT on the gross receipts of newspapers from advertisements and on their acquisition of paper, ink and services for publication. Even on the assumption that no exemption has effectively been granted to print media transactions, we find no violation of press freedom in these cases. To be sure, we are not dealing here with a statute that on its face operates in the area of press freedom. The PPI's claim is simply that, as applied to newspapers, the law abridges press freedom. Even with due recognition of its high estate and its importance in a democratic society, however, the press is not immune from general regulation by the State. It has been held: The publisher of a newspaper has no immunity from the application of general laws. He has no special privilege to invade the rights and liberties of others. He must answer for libel. He may be punished for contempt of court. . . . Like others, he must pay equitable and nondiscriminatory taxes on his business. . . . 27 The PPI does not dispute this point, either. What it contends is that by withdrawing the exemption previously granted to print media transactions involving printing, publication, importation or sale of newspapers, Republic Act No. 7716 has singled out the press for discriminatory treatment and that within the class of mass media the law discriminates against print media by giving broadcast media favored treatment. We have carefully examined this argument, but we are unable to find a differential treatment of the press by the law, much less any censorial motivation for its enactment. If the press is now required to pay a value-added tax on its transactions, it is not because it is being singled out, much less targeted, for special treatment but only because of the removal of the exemption previously granted to it by law. The withdrawal of exemption is all that is involved in these cases. Other transactions, likewise previously granted exemption, have been delisted as part of the scheme to expand the base and the scope of the VAT system. The law would perhaps be open to the charge of discriminatory treatment if the only privilege withdrawn had been that granted to the press. But that is not the case. The situation in the case at bar is indeed a far cry from those cited by the PPI in support of its claim that Republic Act No. 7716 subjects the press to discriminatory taxation. In the cases cited, the discriminatory purpose was clear either from the background of the law or from its operation. For example, in Grosjean v. American Press Co., 28the law imposed a license tax equivalent to 2% of the gross receipts derived from advertisements only on newspapers which

had a circulation of more than 20,000 copies per week. Because the tax was not based on the volume of advertisement alone but was measured by the extent of its circulation as well, the law applied only to the thirteen large newspapers in Louisiana, leaving untaxed four papers with circulation of only slightly less than 20,000 copies a week and 120 weekly newspapers which were in serious competition with the thirteen newspapers in question. It was well known that the thirteen newspapers had been critical of Senator Huey Long, and the Long-dominated legislature of Louisiana respondent by taxing what Long described as the "lying newspapers" by imposing on them "a tax on lying." The effect of the tax was to curtail both their revenue and their circulation. As the U.S. Supreme Court noted, the tax was "a deliberate and calculated device in the guise of a tax to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled in virtue of the constitutional guaranties." 29 The case is a classic illustration of the warning that the power to tax is the power to destroy. In the other case 30 invoked by the PPI, the press was also found to have been singled out because everything was exempt from the "use tax" on ink and paper, except the press. Minnesota imposed a tax on the sales of goods in that state. To protect the sales tax, it enacted a complementary tax on the privilege of "using, storing or consuming in that state tangible personal property" by eliminating the residents' incentive to get goods from outside states where the sales tax might be lower. The Minnesota Star Tribune was exempted from both taxes from 1967 to 1971. In 1971, however, the state legislature amended the tax scheme by imposing the "use tax" on the cost of paper and ink used for publication. The law was held to have singled out the press because (1) there was no reason for imposing the "use tax" since the press was exempt from the sales tax and (2) the "use tax" was laid on an "intermediate transaction rather than the ultimate retail sale." Minnesota had a heavy burden of justifying the differential treatment and it failed to do so. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court found the law to be discriminatory because the legislature, by again amending the law so as to exempt the first $100,000 of paper and ink used, further narrowed the coverage of the tax so that "only a handful of publishers pay any tax at all and even fewer pay any significant amount of tax." 31 The discriminatory purpose was thus very clear. More recently, in Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 32 it was held that a law which taxed general interest magazines but not newspapers and religious, professional, trade and sports journals was discriminatory because while the tax did not single out the press as a whole, it targeted a small group within the press. What is more, by differentiating on the basis of contents (i.e., between general interest and special interests such as religion or sports) the law became "entirely incompatible with the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press." These cases come down to this: that unless justified, the differential treatment of the press creates risks of suppression of expression. In contrast, in the cases at bar, the statute applies to a wide range of goods and services. The argument that, by imposing the VAT only on print media whose gross sales exceeds P480,000 but not more than P750,000, the law discriminates 33 is without merit since it has not been shown that as a result the class subject to tax has been unreasonably narrowed. The fact is that this limitation does not apply to the press along but to all sales. Nor is impermissible motive shown by the fact that print media and broadcast media are treated differently. The press is taxed on its transactions involving printing and publication, which are different from the transactions of broadcast media. There is thus a reasonable basis for the classification. The cases canvassed, it must be stressed, eschew any suggestion that "owners of newspapers are immune from any forms of ordinary taxation." The license tax in the Grosjean case was

declared invalid because it was "one single in kind, with a long history of hostile misuse against the freedom of the press." 34 On the other hand, Minneapolis Star acknowledged that "The First Amendment does not prohibit all regulation of the press [and that] the States and the Federal Government can subject newspapers to generally applicable economic regulations without creating constitutional problems." 35 What has been said above also disposes of the allegations of the PBS that the removal of the exemption of printing, publication or importation of books and religious articles, as well as their printing and publication, likewise violates freedom of thought and of conscience. For as the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization , 36 the Free Exercise of Religion Clause does not prohibit imposing a generally applicable sales and use tax on the sale of religious materials by a religious organization. This brings us to the question whether the registration provision of the law, 37 although of general applicability, nonetheless is invalid when applied to the press because it lays a prior restraint on its essential freedom. The case of American Bible Society v. City of Manila 38 is cited by both the PBS and the PPI in support of their contention that the law imposes censorship. There, this Court held that an ordinance of the City of Manila, which imposed a license fee on those engaged in the business of general merchandise, could not be applied to the appellant's sale of bibles and other religious literature. This Court relied on Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 39 in which it was held that, as a license fee is fixed in amount and unrelated to the receipts of the taxpayer, the license fee, when applied to a religious sect, was actually being imposed as a condition for the exercise of the sect's right under the Constitution. For that reason, it was held, the license fee "restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise." 40 But, in this case, the fee in 107, although a fixed amount (P1,000), is not imposed for the exercise of a privilege but only for the purpose of defraying part of the cost of registration. The registration requirement is a central feature of the VAT system. It is designed to provide a record of tax credits because any person who is subject to the payment of the VAT pays an input tax, even as he collects an output tax on sales made or services rendered. The registration fee is thus a mere administrative fee, one not imposed on the exercise of a privilege, much less a constitutional right. For the foregoing reasons, we find the attack on Republic Act No. 7716 on the ground that it offends the free speech, press and freedom of religion guarantees of the Constitution to be without merit. For the same reasons, we find the claim of the Philippine Educational Publishers Association (PEPA) in G.R. No. 115931 that the increase in the price of books and other educational materials as a result of the VAT would violate the constitutional mandate to the government to give priority to education, science and technology (Art. II, 17) to be untenable.

B. Claims of Regressivity, Denial of Due Process, Equal Protection, and Impairment of Contracts There is basis for passing upon claims that on its face the statute violates the guarantees of freedom of speech, press and religion. The possible "chilling effect" which it may have on the

essential freedom of the mind and conscience and the need to assure that the channels of communication are open and operating importunately demand the exercise of this Court's power of review. There is, however, no justification for passing upon the claims that the law also violates the rule that taxation must be progressive and that it denies petitioners' right to due process and that equal protection of the laws. The reason for this different treatment has been cogently stated by an eminent authority on constitutional law thus: "[W]hen freedom of the mind is imperiled by law, it is freedom that commands a momentum of respect; when property is imperiled it is the lawmakers' judgment that commands respect. This dual standard may not precisely reverse the presumption of constitutionality in civil liberties cases, but obviously it does set up a hierarchy of values within the due process clause." 41 Indeed, the absence of threat of immediate harm makes the need for judicial intervention less evident and underscores the essential nature of petitioners' attack on the law on the grounds of regressivity, denial of due process and equal protection and impairment of contracts as a mere academic discussion of the merits of the law. For the fact is that there have even been no notices of assessments issued to petitioners and no determinations at the administrative levels of their claims so as to illuminate the actual operation of the law and enable us to reach sound judgment regarding so fundamental questions as those raised in these suits. Thus, the broad argument against the VAT is that it is regressive and that it violates the requirement that "The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable [and] Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation." 42Petitioners in G.R. No. 115781 quote from a paper, entitled "VAT Policy Issues: Structure, Regressivity, Inflation and Exports" by Alan A. Tait of the International Monetary Fund, that "VAT payment by low-income households will be a higher proportion of their incomes (and expenditures) than payments by higher-income households. That is, the VAT will be regressive." Petitioners contend that as a result of the uniform 10% VAT, the tax on consumption goods of those who are in the higher-income bracket, which before were taxed at a rate higher than 10%, has been reduced, while basic commodities, which before were taxed at rates ranging from 3% to 5%, are now taxed at a higher rate. Just as vigorously as it is asserted that the law is regressive, the opposite claim is pressed by respondents that in fact it distributes the tax burden to as many goods and services as possible particularly to those which are within the reach of higher-income groups, even as the law exempts basic goods and services. It is thus equitable. The goods and properties subject to the VAT are those used or consumed by higher-income groups. These include real properties held primarily for sale to customers or held for lease in the ordinary course of business, the right or privilege to use industrial, commercial or scientific equipment, hotels, restaurants and similar places, tourist buses, and the like. On the other hand, small business establishments, with annual gross sales of less than P500,000, are exempted. This, according to respondents, removes from the coverage of the law some 30,000 business establishments. On the other hand, an occasional paper 43 of the Center for Research and Communication cities a NEDA study that the VAT has minimal impact on inflation and income distribution and that while additional expenditure for the lowest income class is only P301 or 1.49% a year, that for a family earning P500,000 a year or more is P8,340 or 2.2%. Lacking empirical data on which to base any conclusion regarding these arguments, any discussion whether the VAT is regressive in the sense that it will hit the "poor" and middleincome group in society harder than it will the "rich," as the Cooperative Union of the Philippines

(CUP) claims in G.R. No. 115873, is largely an academic exercise. On the other hand, the CUP's contention that Congress' withdrawal of exemption of producers cooperatives, marketing cooperatives, and service cooperatives, while maintaining that granted to electric cooperatives, not only goes against the constitutional policy to promote cooperatives as instruments of social justice (Art. XII, 15) but also denies such cooperatives the equal protection of the law is actually a policy argument. The legislature is not required to adhere to a policy of "all or none" in choosing the subject of taxation.44 Nor is the contention of the Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Association (CREBA), petitioner in G.R. 115754, that the VAT will reduce the mark up of its members by as much as 85% to 90% any more concrete. It is a mere allegation. On the other hand, the claim of the Philippine Press Institute, petitioner in G.R. No. 115544, that the VAT will drive some of its members out of circulation because their profits from advertisements will not be enough to pay for their tax liability, while purporting to be based on the financial statements of the newspapers in question, still falls short of the establishment of facts by evidence so necessary for adjudicating the question whether the tax is oppressive and confiscatory. Indeed, regressivity is not a negative standard for courts to enforce. What Congress is required by the Constitution to do is to "evolve a progressive system of taxation." This is a directive to Congress, just like the directive to it to give priority to the enactment of laws for the enhancement of human dignity and the reduction of social, economic and political inequalities (Art. XIII, 1), or for the promotion of the right to "quality education" (Art. XIV, 1). These provisions are put in the Constitution as moral incentives to legislation, not as judicially enforceable rights. At all events, our 1988 decision in Kapatiran 45 should have laid to rest the questions now raised against the VAT. There similar arguments made against the original VAT Law (Executive Order No. 273) were held to be hypothetical, with no more basis than newspaper articles which this Court found to be "hearsay and [without] evidentiary value." As Republic Act No. 7716 merely expands the base of the VAT system and its coverage as provided in the original VAT Law, further debate on the desirability and wisdom of the law should have shifted to Congress. Only slightly less abstract but nonetheless hypothetical is the contention of CREBA that the imposition of the VAT on the sales and leases of real estate by virtue of contracts entered into prior to the effectivity of the law would violate the constitutional provision that "No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed." It is enough to say that the parties to a contract cannot, through the exercise of prophetic discernment, fetter the exercise of the taxing power of the State. For not only are existing laws read into contracts in order to fix obligations as between parties, but the reservation of essential attributes of sovereign power is also read into contracts as a basic postulate of the legal order. The policy of protecting contracts against impairment presupposes the maintenance of a government which retains adequate authority to secure the peace and good order of society. 46 In truth, the 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. 47 Such is not the case of PAL in G.R. No. 115852, and we do not understand it to make this claim. Rather, its position, as discussed above, is that the removal of its tax exemption cannot be made by a general, but only by a specific, law.

The substantive issues raised in some of the cases are presented in abstract, hypothetical form because of the lack of a concrete record. We accept that this Court does not only adjudicate private cases; that public actions by "non-Hohfeldian" 48 or ideological plaintiffs are now cognizable provided they meet the standing requirement of the Constitution; that under Art. VIII, 1, 2 the Court has a "special function" of vindicating constitutional rights. Nonetheless the feeling cannot be escaped that we do not have before us in these cases a fully developed factual record that alone can impart to our adjudication the impact of actuality 49 to insure that decision-making is informed and well grounded. Needless to say, we do not have power to render advisory opinions or even jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory judgment. In effect we are being asked to do what the Conference Committee is precisely accused of having done in these cases to sit as a third legislative chamber to review legislation. We are told, however, that the power of judicial review is not so much power as it is duty imposed on this Court by the Constitution and that we would be remiss in the performance of that duty if we decline to look behind the barriers set by the principle of separation of powers. Art. VIII, 1, 2 is cited in support of this view: Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not 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. To view the judicial power of review as a duty is nothing new. Chief Justice Marshall said so in 1803, to justify the assertion of this power in Marbury v. Madison: It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. 50 Justice Laurel echoed this justification in 1936 in Angara v. Electoral Commission: And when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them. 51 This conception of the judicial cases 52 of this Court following Angara. power has been affirmed in several

It does not add anything, therefore, to invoke this "duty" to justify this Court's intervention in what is essentially a case that at best is not ripe for adjudication. That duty must still be performed in the context of a concrete case or controversy, as Art. VIII, 5(2) clearly defines our jurisdiction in terms of "cases," and nothing but "cases." That the other departments of the government may have committed a grave abuse of discretion is not an independent ground for exercising our power. Disregard of the essential limits imposed by the case and controversy requirement can in the long run only result in undermining our authority as a court of law. For,

as judges, what we are called upon to render is judgment according to law, not according to what may appear to be the opinion of the day. _______________________________ In the preceeding pages we have endeavored to discuss, within limits, the validity of Republic Act No. 7716 in its formal and substantive aspects as this has been raised in the various cases before us. To sum up, we hold: (1) That the procedural requirements of the Constitution have been complied with by Congress in the enactment of the statute; (2) That judicial inquiry whether the formal requirements for the enactment of statutes beyond those prescribed by the Constitution have been observed is precluded by the principle of separation of powers; (3) That the law does not abridge freedom of speech, expression or the press, nor interfere with the free exercise of religion, nor deny to any of the parties the right to an education; and (4) That, in view of the absence of a factual foundation of record, claims that the law is regressive, oppressive and confiscatory and that it violates vested rights protected under the Contract Clause are prematurely raised and do not justify the grant of prospective relief by writ of prohibition. WHEREFORE, the petitions in these cases are DISMISSED. Bidin, Quiason, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Republic SUPREME Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-9637

of

the

Philippines COURT

April 30, 1957 SOCIETY, plaintiff-appellant,

AMERICAN BIBLE vs. CITY OF MANILA, defendant-appellee. City Fiscal Eugenio Angeles and Assistant City Fiscal Arsenio Naawa for appellee. FELIX, J.: Juan

Nabong

for

appellant.

Plaintiff-appellant is a foreign, non-stock, non-profit, religious, missionary corporation duly registered and doing business in the Philippines through its Philippine agency established in Manila in November, 1898, with its principal office at 636 Isaac Peral in said City. The defendant appellee is a municipal corporation with powers that are to be exercised in conformity with the provisions of Republic Act No. 409, known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila. In the course of its ministry, plaintiff's Philippine agency has been distributing and selling bibles and/or gospel portions thereof (except during the Japanese occupation) throughout the Philippines and translating the same into several Philippine dialects. On May 29 1953, the acting City Treasurer of the City of Manila informed plaintiff that it was conducting the business of general merchandise since November, 1945, without providing itself with the necessary Mayor's permit and municipal license, in violation of Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, and Ordinances Nos. 2529, 3028 and 3364, and required plaintiff to secure, within three days, the corresponding permit and license fees, together with compromise covering the period from the 4th quarter of 1945 to the 2nd quarter of 1953, in the total sum of P5,821.45 (Annex A). Plaintiff protested against this requirement, but the City Treasurer demanded that plaintiff deposit and pay under protest the sum of P5,891.45, if suit was to be taken in court regarding the same (Annex B). To avoid the closing of its business as well as further fines and penalties in the premises on October 24, 1953, plaintiff paid to the defendant under protest the said permit and license fees in the aforementioned amount, giving at the same time notice to the City Treasurer that suit would be taken in court to question the legality of the ordinances under which, the said fees were being collected (Annex C), which was done on the same date by filing the complaint that gave rise to this action. In its complaint plaintiff prays that judgment be rendered declaring the said Municipal Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, and Ordinances Nos. 2529, 3028 and 3364 illegal and unconstitutional, and that the defendant be ordered to refund to the plaintiff the sum of P5,891.45 paid under protest, together with legal interest thereon, and the costs, plaintiff further praying for such other relief and remedy as the court may deem just equitable. Defendant answered the complaint, maintaining in turn that said ordinances were enacted by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila by virtue of the power granted to it by section 2444, subsection (m-2) of the Revised Administrative Code, superseded on June 18, 1949, by section 18, subsection (1) of Republic Act No. 409, known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila, and praying that the complaint be dismissed, with costs against plaintiff. This answer was replied by the plaintiff reiterating the unconstitutionality of the often-repeated ordinances. Before trial the parties submitted the following stipulation of facts: COME NOW the parties in the above-entitled case, thru their undersigned attorneys and respectfully submit the following stipulation of facts: 1. That the plaintiff sold for the use of the purchasers at its principal office at 636 Isaac Peral, Manila, Bibles, New Testaments, bible portions and bible concordance in English and other foreign languages imported by it from the United States as well as Bibles, New Testaments and bible portions in the local dialects imported and/or purchased locally; that from the fourth quarter of 1945 to the first quarter of 1953 inclusive the sales made by the plaintiff were as follows:

Quarter

Amount Sales

of

4th quarter 1945 1st quarter 1946 2nd quarter 1946 3rd quarter 1946 4th quarter 1946 1st quarter 1947 2nd quarter 1947 3rd quarter 1947 4th quarter 1947 1st quarter 1948 2nd quarter 1948 3rd quarter 1948 4th quarter 1948 1st quarter 1949 2nd quarter 1949 3rd quarter 1949 4th quarter 1949 1st quarter 1950 2nd quarter 1950 3rd quarter 1950 4th quarter 1950 1st quarter 1951 2nd quarter 1951 3rd quarter 1951 4th quarter 1951 1st quarter 1952 2nd quarter 1952

P1,244.21 2,206.85 1,950.38 2,235.99 3,256.04 13,241.07 15,774.55 14,654.13 12,590.94 11,143.90 14,715.26 38,333.83 16,179.90 23,975.10 17,802.08 16,640.79 15,961.38 18,562.46 21,816.32 25,004.55 45,287.92 37,841.21 29,103.98 20,181.10 22,968.91 23,002.65 17,626.96

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

17,921.01 24,180.72 29,516.21

2. That the parties hereby reserve the right to present evidence of other facts not herein stipulated. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this case be set for hearing so that the parties may present further evidence on their behalf. (Record on Appeal, pp. 15-16). When the case was set for hearing, plaintiff proved, among other things, that it has been in existence in the Philippines since 1899, and that its parent society is in New York, United States of America; that its, contiguous real properties located at Isaac Peral are exempt from real estate taxes; and that it was never required to pay any municipal license fee or tax before the war, nor does the American Bible Society in the United States pay any license fee or sales tax for the sale of bible therein. Plaintiff further tried to establish that it never made any profit from the sale of its bibles, which are disposed of for as low as one third of the cost, and that in order to maintain its operating cost it obtains substantial remittances from its New York office and voluntary contributions and gifts from certain churches, both in the United States and in the Philippines, which are interested in its missionary work. Regarding plaintiff's contention of lack of profit in the sale of bibles, defendant retorts that the admissions of plaintiff-appellant's lone witness who testified on cross-examination that bibles bearing the price of 70 cents each from plaintiff-appellant's New York office are sold here by plaintiff-appellant at P1.30 each; those bearing the price of $4.50 each are sold here at P10 each; those bearing the price of $7 each are sold here at P15 each; and those bearing the price of $11 each are sold here at P22 each, clearly show that plaintiff's contention that it never makes any profit from the sale of its bible, is evidently untenable. After hearing the Court rendered judgment, the last part of which is as follows: As may be seen from the repealed section (m-2) of the Revised Administrative Code and the repealing portions (o) of section 18 of Republic Act No. 409, although they seemingly differ in the way the legislative intent is expressed, yet their meaning is practically the same for the purpose of taxing the merchandise mentioned in said legal provisions, and that the taxes to be levied by said ordinances is in the nature of percentage graduated taxes (Sec. 3 of Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, and Sec. 1, Group 2, of Ordinance No. 2529, as amended by Ordinance No. 3364). IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, this Court is of the opinion and so holds that this case should be dismissed, as it is hereby dismissed, for lack of merits, with costs against the plaintiff. Not satisfied with this verdict plaintiff took up the matter to the Court of Appeals which certified the case to Us for the reason that the errors assigned to the lower Court involved only questions of law. Appellant contends that the lower Court erred:

1. In holding that Ordinances Nos. 2529 and 3000, as respectively amended, are not unconstitutional; 2. In holding that subsection m-2 of Section 2444 of the Revised Administrative Code under which Ordinances Nos. 2592 and 3000 were promulgated, was not repealed by Section 18 of Republic Act No. 409; 3. In not holding that an ordinance providing for taxes based on gross sales or receipts, in order to be valid under the new Charter of the City of Manila, must first be approved by the President of the Philippines; and 4. In holding that, as the sales made by the plaintiff-appellant have assumed commercial proportions, it cannot escape from the operation of said municipal ordinances under the cloak of religious privilege. The issues. As may be seen from the proceeding statement of the case, the issues involved in the present controversy may be reduced to the following: (1) whether or not the ordinances of the City of Manila, Nos. 3000, as amended, and 2529, 3028 and 3364, are constitutional and valid; and (2) whether the provisions of said ordinances are applicable or not to the case at bar. Section 1, subsection (7) of Article III of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, provides that: (7) No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religion test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. Predicated on this constitutional mandate, plaintiff-appellant contends that Ordinances Nos. 2529 and 3000, as respectively amended, are unconstitutional and illegal in so far as its society is concerned, because they provide for religious censorship and restrain the free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession, to wit: the distribution and sale of bibles and other religious literature to the people of the Philippines. Before entering into a discussion of the constitutional aspect of the case, We shall first consider the provisions of the questioned ordinances in relation to their application to the sale of bibles, etc. by appellant. The records, show that by letter of May 29, 1953 (Annex A), the City Treasurer required plaintiff to secure a Mayor's permit in connection with the society's alleged business of distributing and selling bibles, etc. and to pay permit dues in the sum of P35 for the period covered in this litigation, plus the sum of P35 for compromise on account of plaintiff's failure to secure the permit required by Ordinance No. 3000 of the City of Manila, as amended. This Ordinance is of general application and not particularly directed against institutions like the plaintiff, and it does not contain any provisions whatever prescribing religious censorship nor restraining the free exercise and enjoyment of any religious profession. Section 1 of Ordinance No. 3000 reads as follows: SEC. 1. PERMITS NECESSARY. It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to conduct or engage in any of the businesses, trades, or occupations enumerated in Section 3 of this Ordinance or other businesses, trades, or occupations for which a permit is required for the proper supervision and enforcement of existing laws and

ordinances governing the sanitation, security, and welfare of the public and the health of the employees engaged in the business specified in said section 3 hereof, WITHOUT FIRST HAVING OBTAINED A PERMIT THEREFOR FROM THE MAYOR AND THE NECESSARY LICENSE FROM THE CITY TREASURER. The business, trade or occupation of the plaintiff involved in this case is not particularly mentioned in Section 3 of the Ordinance, and the record does not show that a permit is required therefor under existing laws and ordinances for the proper supervision and enforcement of their provisions governing the sanitation, security and welfare of the public and the health of the employees engaged in the business of the plaintiff. However, sections 3 of Ordinance 3000 contains item No. 79, which reads as follows: 79. All other businesses, trades mentioned in this Ordinance, except City is not empowered to license or to tax P5.00 or those occupations upon which not the

Therefore, the necessity of the permit is made to depend upon the power of the City to license or tax said business, trade or occupation. As to the license fees that the Treasurer of the City of Manila required the society to pay from the 4th quarter of 1945 to the 1st quarter of 1953 in the sum of P5,821.45, including the sum of P50 as compromise, Ordinance No. 2529, as amended by Ordinances Nos. 2779, 2821 and 3028 prescribes the following: SEC. 1. FEES. Subject to the provisions of section 578 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila, as amended, there shall be paid to the City Treasurer for engaging in any of the businesses or occupations below enumerated, quarterly, license fees based on gross sales or receipts realized during the preceding quarter in accordance with the rates herein prescribed: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That a person engaged in any businesses or occupation for the first time shall pay the initial license fee based on the probable gross sales or receipts for the first quarter beginning from the date of the opening of the business as indicated herein for the corresponding business or occupation. xxx xxx xxx

GROUP 2. Retail dealers in new (not yet used) merchandise, which dealers are not yet subject to the payment of any municipal tax, such as (1) retail dealers in general merchandise; (2) retail dealers exclusively engaged in the sale of . . . books, including stationery. xxx xxx xxx

As may be seen, the license fees required to be paid quarterly in Section 1 of said Ordinance No. 2529, as amended, are not imposed directly upon any religious institution but upon those engaged in any of the business or occupations therein enumerated, such as retail "dealers in general merchandise" which, it is alleged, cover the business or occupation of selling bibles, books, etc.

Chapter 60 of the Revised Administrative Code which includes section 2444, subsection (m-2) of said legal body, as amended by Act No. 3659, approved on December 8, 1929, empowers the Municipal Board of the City of Manila: (M-2) To tax and fix the license fee on (a) dealers in new automobiles or accessories or both, and (b) retail dealers in new (not yet used) merchandise, which dealers are not yet subject to the payment of any municipal tax. For the purpose of taxation, these retail dealers shall be classified as (1) retail dealers in general merchandise, and (2) retail dealers exclusively engaged in the sale of (a) textiles . . . (e) books, including stationery, paper and office supplies, . . .: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That the combined total tax of any debtor or manufacturer, or both, enumerated under these subsections (m-1) and (m-2), whether dealing in one or all of the articles mentioned herein, SHALL NOT BE IN EXCESS OF FIVE HUNDRED PESOS PER ANNUM. and appellee's counsel maintains that City Ordinances Nos. 2529 and 3000, as amended, were enacted in virtue of the power that said Act No. 3669 conferred upon the City of Manila. Appellant, however, contends that said ordinances are longer in force and effect as the law under which they were promulgated has been expressly repealed by Section 102 of Republic Act No. 409 passed on June 18, 1949, known as the Revised Manila Charter. Passing upon this point the lower Court categorically stated that Republic Act No. 409 expressly repealed the provisions of Chapter 60 of the Revised Administrative Code but in the opinion of the trial Judge, although Section 2444 (m-2) of the former Manila Charter and section 18 (o) of the new seemingly differ in the way the legislative intent was expressed, yet their meaning is practically the same for the purpose of taxing the merchandise mentioned in both legal provisions and, consequently, Ordinances Nos. 2529 and 3000, as amended, are to be considered as still in full force and effect uninterruptedly up to the present. Often the legislature, instead of simply amending the pre-existing statute, will repeal the old statute in its entirety and by the same enactment re-enact all or certain portions of the preexisting law. Of course, the problem created by this sort of legislative action involves mainly the effect of the repeal upon rights and liabilities which accrued under the original statute. Are those rights and liabilities destroyed or preserved? The authorities are divided as to the effect of simultaneous repeals and re-enactments. Some adhere to the view that the rights and liabilities accrued under the repealed act are destroyed, since the statutes from which they sprang are actually terminated, even though for only a very short period of time. Others, and they seem to be in the majority, refuse to accept this view of the situation, and consequently maintain that all rights an liabilities which have accrued under the original statute are preserved and may be enforced, since the re-enactment neutralizes the repeal, therefore, continuing the law in force without interruption. (Crawford-Statutory Construction, Sec. 322). Appellant's counsel states that section 18 ( o) of Republic Act No, 409 introduces a new and wider concept of taxation and is different from the provisions of Section 2444(m-2) that the former cannot be considered as a substantial re-enactment of the provisions of the latter. We have quoted above the provisions of section 2444(m-2) of the Revised Administrative Code and We shall now copy hereunder the provisions of Section 18, subdivision ( o) of Republic Act No. 409, which reads as follows:

(o) To tax and fix the license fee on dealers in general merchandise, including importers and indentors, except those dealers who may be expressly subject to the payment of some other municipal tax under the provisions of this section. Dealers in general merchandise shall be classified as (a) wholesale dealers and (b) retail dealers. For purposes of the tax on retail dealers, general merchandise shall be classified into four main classes: namely (1) luxury articles, (2) semi-luxury articles, (3) essential commodities, and (4) miscellaneous articles. A separate license shall be prescribed for each class but where commodities of different classes are sold in the same establishment, it shall not be compulsory for the owner to secure more than one license if he pays the higher or highest rate of tax prescribed by ordinance. Wholesale dealers shall pay the license tax as such, as may be provided by ordinance. For purposes of this section, the term "General merchandise" shall include poultry and livestock, agricultural products, fish and other allied products. The only essential difference that We find between these two provisions that may have any bearing on the case at bar, is that, while subsection (m-2) prescribes that the combined total tax of any dealer or manufacturer, or both, enumerated under subsections (m-1) and (m-2), whether dealing in one or all of the articles mentioned therein, shall not be in excess of P500 per annum, the corresponding section 18, subsection (o) of Republic Act No. 409, does not contain any limitation as to the amount of tax or license fee that the retail dealer has to pay per annum. Hence, and in accordance with the weight of the authorities above referred to that maintain that "all rights and liabilities which have accrued under the original statute are preserved and may be enforced, since the reenactment neutralizes the repeal, therefore continuing the law in force without interruption", We hold that the questioned ordinances of the City of Manila are still in force and effect. Plaintiff, however, argues that the questioned ordinances, to be valid, must first be approved by the President of the Philippines as per section 18, subsection (ii) of Republic Act No. 409, which reads as follows: (ii) To tax, license and regulate any business, trade or occupation being conducted within the City of Manila,not otherwise enumerated in the preceding subsections, including percentage taxes based on gross sales or receipts, subject to the approval of the PRESIDENT, except amusement taxes. but this requirement of the President's approval was not contained in section 2444 of the former Charter of the City of Manila under which Ordinance No. 2529 was promulgated. Anyway, as stated by appellee's counsel, the business of "retail dealers in general merchandise" is expressly enumerated in subsection (o), section 18 of Republic Act No. 409; hence, an ordinance prescribing a municipal tax on said business does not have to be approved by the President to be effective, as it is not among those referred to in said subsection ( ii). Moreover, the questioned ordinances are still in force, having been promulgated by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila under the authority granted to it by law. The question that now remains to be determined is whether said ordinances are inapplicable, invalid or unconstitutional if applied to the alleged business of distribution and sale of bibles to the people of the Philippines by a religious corporation like the American Bible Society, plaintiff herein.

With regard to Ordinance No. 2529, as amended by Ordinances Nos. 2779, 2821 and 3028, appellant contends that it is unconstitutional and illegal because it restrains the free exercise and enjoyment of the religious profession and worship of appellant. Article III, section 1, clause (7) of the Constitution of the Philippines aforequoted, guarantees the freedom of religious profession and worship. "Religion has been spoken of as a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to its Creator" (Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil., 201).It has reference to one's views of his relations to His Creator and to the obligations they impose of reverence to His being and character, and obedience to His Will (Davis vs. Beason, 133 U.S., 342). The constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious information. Any restraints of such right can only be justified like other restraints of freedom of expression on the grounds that there is a clear and present danger of any substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent". (Taada and Fernando on the Constitution of the Philippines, Vol. 1, 4th ed., p. 297). In the case at bar the license fee herein involved is imposed upon appellant for its distribution and sale of bibles and other religious literature: In the case of Murdock vs. Pennsylvania, it was held that an ordinance requiring that a license be obtained before a person could canvass or solicit orders for goods, paintings, pictures, wares or merchandise cannot be made to apply to members of Jehovah's Witnesses who went about from door to door distributing literature and soliciting people to "purchase" certain religious books and pamphlets, all published by the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. The "price" of the books was twenty-five cents each, the "price" of the pamphlets five cents each. It was shown that in making the solicitations there was a request for additional "contribution" of twenty-five cents each for the books and five cents each for the pamphlets. Lesser sum were accepted, however, and books were even donated in case interested persons were without funds. On the above facts the Supreme Court held that it could not be said that petitioners were engaged in commercial rather than a religious venture. Their activities could not be described as embraced in the occupation of selling books and pamphlets. Then the Court continued: "We do not mean to say that religious groups and the press are free from all financial burdens of government. See Grosjean vs. American Press Co., 297 U.S., 233, 250, 80 L. ed. 660, 668, 56 S. Ct. 444. We have here something quite different, for example, from a tax on the income of one who engages in religious activities or a tax on property used or employed in connection with activities. It is one thing to impose a tax on the income or property of a preacher. It is quite another to exact a tax from him for the privilege of delivering a sermon. The tax imposed by the City of Jeannette is a flat license tax, payment of which is a condition of the exercise of these constitutional privileges. The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment. . . . Those who can tax the exercise of this religious practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance. Those who can tax the privilege of engaging in this form of missionary evangelism can close all its doors to all those who do not have a full purse. Spreading religious beliefs in this ancient and honorable manner would thus be denied the needy. . . .

It is contended however that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights . . . The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedom is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down. . . . It is not a nominal fee imposed as a regulatory measure to defray the expenses of policing the activities in question. It is in no way apportioned. It is flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the constitutional liberties of press and religion and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. That is almost uniformly recognized as the inherent vice and evil of this flat license tax." Nor could dissemination of religious information be conditioned upon the approval of an official or manager even if the town were owned by a corporation as held in the case of Marsh vs. State of Alabama (326 U.S. 501), or by the United States itself as held in the case of Tucker vs. Texas (326 U.S. 517). In the former case the Supreme Court expressed the opinion that the right to enjoy freedom of the press and religion occupies a preferred position as against the constitutional right of property owners. "When we balance the constitutional rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy freedom of press and religion, as we must here, we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position. . . . In our view the circumstance that the property rights to the premises where the deprivation of property here involved, took place, were held by others than the public, is not sufficient to justify the State's permitting a corporation to govern a community of citizens so as to restrict their fundamental liberties and the enforcement of such restraint by the application of a State statute." (Taada and Fernando on the Constitution of the Philippines, Vol. 1, 4th ed., p. 304306). Section 27 of Commonwealth Act No. 466, otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code, provides: SEC. 27. EXEMPTIONS FROM TAX ON CORPORATIONS. The following organizations shall not be taxed under this Title in respect to income received by them as such (e) Corporations or associations organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, . . . or educational purposes, . . .: Provided, however, That the income of whatever kind and character from any of its properties, real or personal, or from any activity conducted for profit, regardless of the disposition made of such income, shall be liable to the tax imposed under this Code; Appellant's counsel claims that the Collector of Internal Revenue has exempted the plaintiff from this tax and says that such exemption clearly indicates that the act of distributing and selling bibles, etc. is purely religious and does not fall under the above legal provisions. It may be true that in the case at bar the price asked for the bibles and other religious pamphlets was in some instances a little bit higher than the actual cost of the same but this cannot mean that appellant was engaged in the business or occupation of selling said "merchandise" for profit. For this reason We believe that the provisions of City of Manila Ordinance No. 2529, as

amended, cannot be applied to appellant, for in doing so it would impair its free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession and worship as well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs. With respect to Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, which requires the obtention the Mayor's permit before any person can engage in any of the businesses, trades or occupations enumerated therein, We do not find that it imposes any charge upon the enjoyment of a right granted by the Constitution, nor tax the exercise of religious practices. In the case of Coleman vs. City of Griffin, 189 S.E. 427, this point was elucidated as follows: An ordinance by the City of Griffin, declaring that the practice of distributing either by hand or otherwise, circulars, handbooks, advertising, or literature of any kind, whether said articles are being delivered free, or whether same are being sold within the city limits of the City of Griffin, without first obtaining written permission from the city manager of the City of Griffin, shall be deemed a nuisance and punishable as an offense against the City of Griffin, does not deprive defendant of his constitutional right of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, even though it prohibits him from introducing and carrying out a scheme or purpose which he sees fit to claim as a part of his religious system. It seems clear, therefore, that Ordinance No. 3000 cannot be considered unconstitutional, even if applied to plaintiff Society. But as Ordinance No. 2529 of the City of Manila, as amended, is not applicable to plaintiff-appellant and defendant-appellee is powerless to license or tax the business of plaintiff Society involved herein for, as stated before, it would impair plaintiff's right to the free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession and worship, as well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs, We find that Ordinance No. 3000, as amended is also inapplicable to said business, trade or occupation of the plaintiff. Wherefore, and on the strength of the foregoing considerations, We hereby reverse the decision appealed from, sentencing defendant return to plaintiff the sum of P5,891.45 unduly collected from it. Without pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered. Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Endencia, JJ., concur.

Republic SUPREME Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 173176

of

the

Philippines COURT

August 26, 2008

JUDY ANNE L. SANTOS, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents. DECISION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court filed by petitioner Judy Anne L. Santos (Santos) seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Resolution,2dated 19 June 2006, of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) en banc in C.T.A. EB. CRIM. No. 001 which denied petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review. Petitioner intended to file the Petition for Review with the CTA en banc to appeal the Resolutions dated 23 February 20063 and 11 May 20064 of the CTA First Division in C.T.A. Crim. Case No. 0-012 denying, respectively, her Motion to Quash the Information filed against her for violation of Section 255, in relation to Sections 254 and 248(B) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended; and her Motion for Reconsideration. There is no controversy as to the facts that gave rise to the present Petition. On 19 May 2005, then Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Commissioner Guillermo L. Parayno, Jr. wrote to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Raul M. Gonzales a letter 5 regarding the possible filing of criminal charges against petitioner. BIR Commissioner Parayno began his letter with the following statement: I have the honor to refer to you for preliminary investigation and filing of an information in court if evidence so warrants, the herein attached Joint Affidavit of RODERICK C. ABAD, STIMSON P. CUREG, VILMA V. CARONAN, RHODORA L. DELOS REYES under Group SupervisorTEODORA V. PURINO, of the National Investigation Division, BIR National Office Building, BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City, recommending the criminal prosecution of MS. JUDY ANNE LUMAGUI SANTOS for substantial underdeclaration of income, which constitutes as prima facie evidence of false or fraudulent return under Section 248(B) of the NIRC and punishable under Sections 254 and 255 of the Tax Code. In said letter, BIR Commissioner Parayno summarized the findings of the investigating BIR officers that petitioner, in her Annual Income Tax Return for taxable year 2002 filed with the BIR, declared an income of P8,033,332.70 derived from her talent fees solely from ABS-CBN; initial documents gathered from the BIR offices and those given by petitioners accountant and third parties, however, confirmed that petitioner received in 2002 income in the amount of at least P14,796,234.70, not only from ABS-CBN, but also from other sources, such as movies and product endorsements; the estimated tax liability arising from petitioners underdeclaration amounted to P1,718,925.52, including incremental penalties; the non-declaration by petitioner of an amount equivalent to at least 84.18% of the income declared in her return was considered a substantial underdeclaration of income, which constituted prima facie evidence of false or fraudulent return under Section 248(B)6 of the NIRC, as amended; and petitioners failure to account as part of her income the professional fees she received from sources other than ABSCBN and her underdeclaration of the income she received from ABS-CBN amounted to manifest violations of Sections 2547 and 255,8 as well as Section 248(B) of the NIRC, as amended. After an exchange of affidavits and other pleadings by the parties, Prosecution Attorney Olivia Laroza-Torrevillas issued a Resolution9 dated 21 October 2005 finding probable cause and recommending the filing of a criminal information against petitioner for violation of Section 255 in relation to Sections 254 and 248(B) of the NIRC, as amended. The said Resolution was approved by Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuno.

Pursuant to the 21 October 2005 DOJ Resolution, an Information 10 for violation of Section 255 in relation to Sections 254 and 248(B) of the NIRC, as amended, was filed with the CTA on 3 November 2005 and docketed as C.T.A. Crim. Case No. 0-012. However, the CTA First Division, after noting several discrepancies in the Information filed, required the State Prosecutor to clarify and explain the same, and to submit the original copies of the parties affidavits, memoranda, and all other evidence on record.11 Consequently, Prosecution Attorney Torrevillas, on behalf of respondent People, submitted on 1 December 2005 a Compliance with Ex Parte Motion to Admit Attached Information.12 Prosecution Attorney Torrevillas moved that the documents submitted be admitted as part of the record of the case and the first Information be substituted by the attached second Information. The second Information13addressed the discrepancies noted by the CTA in the first Information, by now reading thus: The undersigned Prosecution Attorney of the Department of Justice hereby accuses JUDY ANNE SANTOS y Lumagui of the offense of violation of Section 255, of Republic Act No. 8424, otherwise known as the "Tax Reform Act of 1997," as amended, committed as follows: "That on or about the 15th day of April, 2003, at Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously file a false and fraudulent income tax return for taxable year 2002 by indicating therein a gross income of P8,033,332.70 when in truth and in fact her correct income for taxable year 2002 is P16,396,234.70 or a gross underdeclaration/difference ofP8,362,902 resulting to an income tax deficiency of P1,395,116.24 excluding interest and penalties thereon of P1,319,500.94 or a total income tax deficiency of P2,714,617.18 to the damage and prejudice of the government of the same amount.["] In a Resolution14 dated 8 December 2005, the CTA First Division granted the Peoples Ex Parte Motion and admitted the second Information. The CTA First Division then issued on 9 December 2005 a warrant for the arrest of petitioner.15 The tax court lifted and recalled the warrant of arrest on 21 December 2005 after petitioner voluntarily appeared and submitted herself to its jurisdiction and filed the required bail bond in the amount of P20,000.00.16 On 10 January 2006, petitioner filed with the CTA First Division a Motion to Quash 17 the Information filed in C.T.A. Crim. Case No. 0-012 on the following grounds: 1. The facts alleged in the INFORMATION do not constitute an offense; 2. The officer who filed the information had no authority to do so; 3. The Honorable Court of Tax Appeals has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case; and 4. The information is void ab initio, being violative of due process, and the equal protection of the laws.

In a Resolution18 dated 23 February 2006, the CTA First Division denied petitioners Motion to Quash and accordingly scheduled her arraignment on 2 March 2006 at 9:00 a.m. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation,19 which was again denied by the CTA First Division in a Resolution20 dated 11 May 2006. Petitioner received a copy of the 11 May 2006 Resolution of the CTA First Division on 17 May 2006. On 1 June 2006, petitioner filed with the CTA en banc a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, docketed as C.T.A. EB. CRIM. No. 001. She filed her Petition for Review with the CTA en bancon 16 June 2006. However, in its Resolution21 dated 19 June 2006, the CTA en banc denied petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, ratiocinating that: In the case before Us, the petitioner is asking for an extension of time to file her Petition for Review to appeal the denial of her motion to quash in C.T.A. Crim. Case No. 0-012. As stated above, a resolution denying a motion to quash is not a proper subject of an appeal to the Court En Bancunder Section 11 of R.A. No. 9282 because a ruling denying a motion to quash is only an interlocutory order, as such, it cannot be made the subject of an appeal pursuant to said law and the Rules of Court. Section 1 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that "no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order" and Section 1 (i) of Rule 50 provides for the dismissal of an appeal on the ground that "the order or judgment appealed from is not appealable". Time and again, the Supreme Court had ruled that the remedy of the accused in case of denial of a motion to quash is for the accused to enter a plea, go to trial and after an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law. Since a denial of a Motion to Quash is not appealable, granting petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review will only be an exercise in futility considering that the dismissal of the Petition for Review that will be filed by way of appeal is mandated both by law and jurisprudence.22 Ultimately, the CTA en banc decreed: WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed on June 1, 2006 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.23 Now comes petitioner before this Court raising the sole issue of: WHETHER A RESOLUTION OF A CTA DIVISION DENYING A MOTION TO QUASH IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN APPEAL TO THE CTA EN BANC UNDER SECTION 11 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9282, AMENDING SECTION 18 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125.24 Section 18 of Republic Act No. 1125,25 as amended by Republic Act No. 9282,26 provides: SEC. 18. Appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc . No civil proceedings involving matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code, the Tariff and Customs Code or the Local Government Code shall be maintained, except as herein provided, until and unless an appeal has been previously filed with the CTA and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

A party adversely affected by a resolution of a Division of the CTA on a motion for reconsideration or new trial, may file a petition for review with the CTA en banc. Petitioners primary argument is that a resolution of a CTA Division denying a motion to quash is a proper subject of an appeal to the CTA en banc under Section 18 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, because the law does not say that only a resolution that constitutes a final disposition of a case may be appealed to the CTA en banc. If the interpretation of the law by the CTA en banc prevails, a procedural void is created leaving the parties, such as petitioner, without any remedy involving erroneous resolutions of a CTA Division. The Court finds no merit in the petitioners assertion. The petition for review under Section 18 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, may be new to the CTA, but it is actually a mode of appeal long available in courts of general jurisdiction. Petitioner is invoking a very narrow and literal reading of Section 18 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended. Indeed, the filing of a petition for review with the CTA en banc from a decision, resolution, or order of a CTA Division is a remedy newly made available in proceedings before the CTA, necessarily adopted to conform to and address the changes in the CTA. There was no need for such rule under Republic Act No. 1125, prior to its amendment, since the CTA then was composed only of one Presiding Judge and two Associate Judges. 27 Any two Judges constituted a quorum and the concurrence of two Judges was necessary to promulgate any decision thereof.28 The amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 9282 to Republic Act No. 1125 elevated the rank of the CTA to a collegiate court, with the same rank as the Court of Appeals, and increased the number of its members to one Presiding Justice and five Associate Justices. 29 The CTA is now allowed to sit en bancor in two Divisions with each Division consisting of three Justices. Four Justices shall constitute a quorum for sessions en banc, and the affirmative votes of four members of the Court en banc are necessary for the rendition of a decision or resolution; while two Justices shall constitute a quorum for sessions of a Division and the affirmative votes of two members of the Division shall be necessary for the rendition of a decision or resolution.30 In A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA, the Revised CTA Rules, this Court delineated the jurisdiction of the CTA en banc31 and in Divisions.32 Section 2, Rule 4 of the Revised CTA Rules recognizes the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CTA en banc to review by appeal the following decisions, resolutions, or orders of the CTA Division: SEC. 2. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court en banc. The Court en banc shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: (a) Decisions or resolutions on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Divisions in the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over:

(1) Cases arising from administrative agencies Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Customs, Department of Finance, Department of Trade and Industry, Department of Agriculture; (2) Local tax cases decided by the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their original jurisdiction; and (3) Tax collection cases decided by the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their original jurisdiction involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties, where the principal amount of taxes and penalties claimed is less than one million pesos; xxxx (f) Decisions, resolutions or orders on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Division in the exercise of its exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or the Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or Bureau of Customs. (g) Decisions, resolutions or order on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Division in the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over criminal offenses mentioned in the preceding subparagraph; x x x. Although the filing of a petition for review with the CTA en banc from a decision, resolution, or order of the CTA Division, was newly made available to the CTA, such mode of appeal has long been available in Philippine courts of general jurisdiction. Hence, the Revised CTA Rules no longer elaborated on it but merely referred to existing rules of procedure on petitions for review and appeals, to wit: RULE PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS 7

SEC. 1. Applicability of the Rules of the Court of Appeals . The procedure in the Court en bancor in Divisions in original and in appealed cases shall be the same as those in petitions for review and appeals before the Court of Appeals pursuant to the applicable provisions of Rules 42, 43, 44 and 46 of the Rules of Court , except as otherwise provided for in these Rules. RULE PROCEDURE IN CIVIL CASES xxxx SEC. 4. Where to appeal; mode of appeal. xxxx 8

(b) An appeal from a decision or resolution of the Court in Division on a motion for reconsideration or new trial shall be taken to the Court by petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The Court en banc shall act on the appeal. xxxx RULE PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL CASES 9

SEC. 1. Review of cases in the Court. The review of criminal cases in the Court en banc or in Division shall be governed by the applicable provisions of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court. xxxx SEC. 9. Appeal; period to appeal. xxxx (b) An appeal to the Court en banc in criminal cases decided by the Court in Division shall be taken by filing a petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the decision or resolution appealed from. The Court may, for good cause, extend the time for filing of the petition for review for an additional period not exceeding fifteen days. (Emphasis ours.) Given the foregoing, the petition for review to be filed with the CTA en banc as the mode for appealing a decision, resolution, or order of the CTA Division, under Section 18 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, is not a totally new remedy, unique to the CTA, with a special application or use therein. To the contrary, the CTA merely adopts the procedure for petitions for review and appeals long established and practiced in other Philippine courts. Accordingly, doctrines, principles, rules, and precedents laid down in jurisprudence by this Court as regards petitions for review and appeals in courts of general jurisdiction should likewise bind the CTA, and it cannot depart therefrom. General rule: The denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order which is not the proper subject of an appeal or a petition for certiorari. According to Section 1, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court, governing appeals from the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) to the Court of Appeals, an appeal may be taken only from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case or of a matter therein when declared by the Rules to be appealable. Said provision, thus, explicitly states that no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order.33 The Court distinguishes final judgments and orders from interlocutory orders in this wise: Section 2, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that "(o)nly final judgments or orders shall be subject to appeal." Interlocutory or incidental judgments or orders do not stay the progress of an action nor are they subject of appeal "until final judgment or order is rendered for one party or the other." The test to determine whether an order or

judgment is interlocutory or final is this: "Does it leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, it is interlocutory; if it does not, it is final". A court order is final in character if it puts an end to the particular matter resolved or settles definitely the matter therein disposed of, such that no further questions can come before the court except the execution of the order. The term "final" judgment or order signifies a judgment or an order which disposes of the cause as to all the parties, reserving no further questions or directions for future determination. The order or judgment may validly refer to the entire controversy or to some definite and separate branch thereof. "In the absence of a statutory definition, a final judgment, order or decree has been held to be x x x one that finally disposes of, adjudicates, or determines the rights, or some right or rights of the parties, either on the entire controversy or on some definite and separate branch thereof, and which concludes them until it is reversed or set aside." The central point to consider is, therefore, the effects of the order on the rights of the parties. A court order, on the other hand, is merely interlocutory in character if it is provisional and leaves substantial proceeding to be had in connection with its subject. The word "interlocutory" refers to "something intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy."34 In other words, after a final order or judgment, the court should have nothing more to do in respect of the relative rights of the parties to the case. Conversely, "an order that does not finally dispose of the case and does not end the Court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions in determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court, is interlocutory."35 The rationale for barring the appeal of an interlocutory order was extensively discussed in Matute v. Court of Appeals,36 thus: It is settled that an "interlocutory order or decree made in the progress of a case is always under the control of the court until the final decision of the suit, and may be modified or rescinded upon sufficient grounds shown at any time before final judgment . . ." Of similar import is the ruling of this Court declaring that "it is rudimentary that such (interlocutory) orders are subject to change in the discretion of the court." Moreover, one of the inherent powers of the court is "To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice. In the language of Chief Justice Moran, paraphrasing the ruling in Veluz vs. Justice of the Peace of Sariaya , "since judges are human, susceptible to mistakes, and are bound to administer justice in accordance with law, they are given the inherent power of amending their orders or judgments so as to make them conformable to law and justice, and they can do so before they lose their jurisdiction of the case, that is before the time to appeal has expired and no appeal has been perfected." And in the abovecited Veluz case, this Court held that "If the trial court should discover or be convinced that it had committed an error in its judgment, or had done an injustice, before the same has become final, it may, upon its own motion or upon a motion of the parties, correct such error in order to do justice between the parties. . . . It would seem to be the very height of absurdity to prohibit a trial judge from correcting an error, mistake, or injustice which is called to his attention before he has lost control of his judgment." Corollarily, it has also been held "that a judge of first instance is not legally prevented from revoking the interlocutory order of another judge in the very litigation subsequently assigned to him for judicial action."

Another recognized reason of the law in permitting appeal only from a final order or judgment, and not from an interlocutory or incidental one, is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action, which must necessarily suspend the hearing and decision on the merits of the case during the pendency of the appeal. If such appeal were allowed, the trial on the merits of the case would necessarily be delayed for a considerable length of time, and compel the adverse party to incur unnecessary expenses, for one of the parties may interpose as many appeals as incidental questions may be raised by him, and interlocutory orders rendered or issued by the lower court.37 There is no dispute that a court order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory. The denial of the motion to quash means that the criminal information remains pending with the court, which must proceed with the trial to determine whether the accused is guilty of the crime charged therein. Equally settled is the rule that an order denying a motion to quash, being interlocutory, is not immediately appealable,38 nor can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari. Such order may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an appeal from the judgment after trial.39 The Court cannot agree in petitioners contention that there would exist a procedural void following the denial of her Motion to Quash by the CTA First Division in its Resolutions dated 23 February 2006 and 11 May 2006, leaving her helpless. The remedy of an accused from the denial of his or her motion to quash has already been clearly laid down as follows: An order denying a Motion to Acquit (like an order denying a motion to quash) is interlocutory and not a final order. It is, therefore, not appealable. Neither can it be the subject of a petition forcertiorari. Such order of denial may only be reviewed, in the ordinary course of law, by an appeal from the judgment, after trial. As stated in Collins vs. Wolfe, and reiterated in Mill vs. Yatco, the accused, after the denial of his motion to quash, should have proceeded with the trial of the case in the court below, and if final judgment is rendered against him, he could then appeal, and, upon such appeal, present the questions which he sought to be decided by the appellate court in a petition forcertiorari. In Acharon vs. Purisima, the procedure was well defined, thus: "Moreover, when the motion to quash filed by Acharon to nullify the criminal cases filed against him was denied by the Municipal Court of General Santos his remedy was not to file a petition for certiorari but to go to trial without prejudice on his part to reiterate the special defenses he had invoked in his motion and, if, after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law. This is the procedure that he should have followed as authorized by law and precedents. Instead, he took the usual step of filing a writ of certiorari before the Court of First Instance which in our opinion is unwarranted it being contrary to the usual course of law."40 Hence, the CTA en banc herein did not err in denying petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, when such Petition for Review is the wrong remedy to assail an interlocutory order denying her Motion to Quash. While the general rule proscribes the appeal of an interlocutory order, there are also recognized exceptions to the same. The general rule is not absolute. Where special circumstances clearly demonstrate the inadequacy of an appeal, then the special civil action of certiorari or prohibition

may exceptionally be allowed.41 This Court recognizes that under certain situations, recourse to extraordinary legal remedies, such as a petition for certiorari, is considered proper to question the denial of a motion to quash (or any other interlocutory order) in the interest of a "more enlightened and substantial justice";42or to promote public welfare and public policy; 43 or when the cases "have attracted nationwide attention, making it essential to proceed with dispatch in the consideration thereof";44 or when the order was rendered with grave abuse of discretion.45 Certiorari is an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order (1) when the tribunal issued such order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; and (2) when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous, and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief.46 Recourse to a petition for certiorari to assail an interlocutory order is now expressly recognized in the ultimate paragraph of Section 1, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court on the subject of appeal, which states: In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. As to whether the CTA en banc, under its expanded jurisdiction in Republic Act No. 9282, has been granted jurisdiction over special civil actions for certiorari is not raised as an issue in the Petition at bar, thus, precluding the Court from making a definitive pronouncement thereon. However, even if such an issue is answered in the negative, it would not substantially affect the ruling of this Court herein, for a party whose motion to quash had been denied may still seek recourse, under exceptional and meritorious circumstances, via a special civil action for certiorari with this Court, refuting petitioners assertion of a procedural void. The CTA First Division did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners Motion to Quash. Assuming that the CTA en banc, as an exception to the general rule, allowed and treated petitioners Petition for Review in C.T.A. EB. CRIM. No. 001 as a special civil action for certiorari, 47 it would still be dismissible for lack of merit. An act of a court or tribunal may only be considered as committed in grave abuse of discretion when the same was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment, which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. In this connection, it is only upon showing that the court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion that an interlocutory order such as that involved in this case may be impugned. Be that as it may, it must be emphasized that this practice is applied only under certain exceptional circumstances to prevent unnecessary delay in the administration of justice and so as not to unduly burden the courts.48 Certiorari is not available to correct errors of procedure or mistakes in the judges findings and conclusions of law and fact. It is only in the presence of extraordinary circumstances evincing a patent disregard of justice and fair play where resort to a petition for certiorari is proper. A party must not be allowed to delay litigation by the sheer expediency of filing a petition

for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court based on scant allegations of grave abuse.49 A writ of certiorari is not intended to correct every controversial interlocutory ruling: it is resorted to only to correct a grave abuse of discretion or a whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Its function is limited to keeping an inferior court within its jurisdiction and to relieve persons from arbitrary acts acts which courts or judges have no power or authority in law to perform. It is not designed to correct erroneous findings and conclusions made by the courts.50 The Petition for Review which petitioner intended to file before the CTA en banc relied on two grounds: (1) the lack of authority of Prosecuting Attorney Torrevillas to file the Information; and (2) the filing of the said Information in violation of petitioners constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws. Anent the first ground, petitioner argues that the Information was filed without the approval of the BIR Commissioner in violation of Section 220 of NIRC, as amended, which provides: SEC. 220. Form and Mode of Proceeding in Actions Arising under this Code. - Civil and criminal actions and proceedings instituted in behalf of the Government under the authority of this Code or other law enforced by the Bureau of Internal Revenue shall be brought in the name of the Government of the Philippines and shall be conducted by legal officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue but no civil or criminal action for the recovery of taxes or the enforcement of any fine, penalty or forfeiture under this Code shall be filed in court without the approval of the Commissioner. Petitioners argument must fail in light of BIR Commissioner Paraynos letter dated 19 May 2005 to DOJ Secretary Gonzales referring "for preliminary investigation and filing of an information in court if evidence so warrants," the findings of the BIR officers recommending the criminal prosecution of petitioner. In said letter, BIR Commissioner Parayno already gave his prior approval to the filing of an information in court should the DOJ, based on the evidence submitted, find probable cause against petitioner during the preliminary investigation. Section 220 of the NIRC, as amended, simply requires that the BIR Commissioner approve the institution of civil or criminal action against a tax law violator, but it does not describe in what form such approval must be given. In this case, BIR Commissioner Paraynos letter of 19 May 2005 already states his express approval of the filing of an information against petitioner and his signature need not appear on the Resolution of the State Prosecutor or the Information itself. Still on the purported lack of authority of Prosecution Attorney Torrevillas to file the Information, petitioner asserts that it is the City Prosecutor under the Quezon City Charter, who has the authority to investigate and prosecute offenses allegedly committed within the jurisdiction of Quezon City, such as petitioners case. The Court is not persuaded. Under Republic Act No. 537, the Revised Charter of Quezon City, the City Prosecutor shall have the following duties relating to the investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses: SEC. 28. The City Attorney - His assistants - His duties. xxxx

(g) He shall also have charge of the prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of city ordinances, in the Court of First Instance and the municipal courts of the city, and shall discharge all the duties in respect to the criminal prosecutions enjoined by law upon provincial fiscals. (h) He shall cause to be investigated all charges of crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of ordinances and have the necessary information or complaints prepared or made against the persons accused. He or any of his assistants may conduct such investigations by taking oral evidence of reputable witnesses, and for this purpose may issue subpoena, summon witnesses to appear and testify under oath before him, and the attendance or evidence of an absent or recalcitrant witness may be enforced by application to the municipal court or the Court of First Instance. No witness summoned to testify under this section shall be under obligation to give any testimony which tend to incriminate himself. Evident from the foregoing is that the City Prosecutor has the power to investigate crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of ordinances committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the city, and which can be prosecuted before the trial courts of the said city. The charge against petitioner, however, is already within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the CTA, 51 as the Information states that her gross underdeclaration resulted in an income tax deficiency of P1,395,116.24, excluding interest and penalties. The City Prosecutor does not have the authority to appear before the CTA, which is now of the same rank as the Court of Appeals. In contrast, the DOJ is the principal law agency of the Philippine government which shall be both its legal counsel and prosecution arm.52 It has the power to investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders and administer the probation and correction system. 53 Under the DOJ is the Office of the State Prosecutor whose functions are described as follows: Sec. 8. Office of the Chief State Prosecutor. - The Office of the Chief State Prosecutor shall have the following functions: (1) Assist the Secretary in the performance of powers and functions of the Department relative to its role as the prosecution arm of the government; (2) Implement the provisions of laws, executive orders and rules, and carry out the policies, plans, programs and projects of the Department relative to the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases; (3) Assist the Secretary in exercising supervision and control over the National Prosecution Service as constituted under P.D. No. 1275 and/or otherwise hereinafter provided; and (4) Perform such other functions as may be provided by law or assigned by the Secretary.54 As explained by CTA First Division in its Resolution dated 11 May 2006: [T]he power or authority of the Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuo, Jr. and his deputies in the Department of Justice to prosecute cases is national in scope; and the

Special Prosecutors authority to sign and file informations in court proceeds from the exercise of said persons authority to conduct preliminary investigations.55 Moreover, there is nothing in the Revised Quezon City Charter which would suggest that the power of the City Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of ordinances committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the city is to the exclusion of the State Prosecutors. In fact, the Office of the State Prosecutor exercises control and supervision over City Prosecutors under Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987. As regards petitioners second ground in her intended Petition for Review with the CTA en banc, she asserts that she has been denied due process and equal protection of the laws when similar charges for violation of the NIRC, as amended, against Regina Encarnacion A. Velasquez (Velasquez) were dismissed by the DOJ in its Resolution dated 10 August 2005 in I.S. No. 2005-330 for the reason that Velasquezs tax liability was not yet fully determined when the charges were filed. The Court is unconvinced. First, a motion to quash should be based on a defect in the information which is evident on its face.56 The same cannot be said herein. The Information against petitioner appears valid on its face; and that it was filed in violation of her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws is not evident on the face thereof. As pointed out by the CTA First Division in its 11 May 2006 Resolution, the more appropriate recourse petitioner should have taken, given the dismissal of similar charges against Velasquez, was to appeal the Resolution dated 21 October 2005 of the Office of the State Prosecutor recommending the filing of an information against her with the DOJ Secretary.57 Second, petitioner cannot claim denial of due process when she was given the opportunity to file her affidavits and other pleadings and submit evidence before the DOJ during the preliminary investigation of her case and before the Information was filed against her. Due process is merely an opportunity to be heard. In addition, preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ is merely inquisitorial. It is not a trial of the case on the merits. Its sole purpose is to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether the respondent therein is probably guilty of the crime. It is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties evidence. Hence, if the investigating prosecutor is already satisfied that he can reasonably determine the existence of probable cause based on the parties evidence thus presented, he may terminate the proceedings and resolve the case.58 Third, petitioner cannot likewise aver that she has been denied equal protection of the laws. The equal protection clause exists to prevent undue favor or privilege. It is intended to eliminate discrimination and oppression based on inequality. Recognizing the existence of real differences among men, the equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality. It merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions, both as to the privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.59 Petitioner was not able to duly establish to the satisfaction of this Court that she and Velasquez were indeed similarly situated, i.e., that they committed identical acts for which they were

charged with the violation of the same provisions of the NIRC; and that they presented similar arguments and evidence in their defense - yet, they were treated differently. Furthermore, that the Prosecution Attorney dismissed what were supposedly similar charges against Velasquez did not compel Prosecution Attorney Torrevillas to rule the same way on the charges against petitioner. In People v. Dela Piedra,60 this Court explained that: The prosecution of one guilty person while others equally guilty are not prosecuted, however, is not, by itself, a denial of the equal protection of the laws. Where the official action purports to be in conformity to the statutory classification, an erroneous or mistaken performance of the statutory duty, although a violation of the statute, is not without more a denial of the equal protection of the laws. The unlawful administration by officers of a statute fair on its face, resulting in its unequal application to those who are entitled to be treated alike, is not a denial of equal protection unless there is shown to be present in it an element of intentional or purposeful discrimination. This may appear on the face of the action taken with respect to a particular class or person, or it may only be shown by extrinsic evidence showing a discriminatory design over another not to be inferred from the action itself. But a discriminatory purpose is not presumed, there must be a showing of "clear and intentional discrimination." Appellant has failed to show that, in charging appellant in court, that there was a "clear and intentional discrimination" on the part of the prosecuting officials. The discretion of who to prosecute depends on the prosecutions sound assessment whether the evidence before it can justify a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense. The presumption is that the prosecuting officers regularly performed their duties, and this presumption can be overcome only by proof to the contrary, not by mere speculation. Indeed, appellant has not presented any evidence to overcome this presumption. The mere allegation that appellant, a Cebuana, was charged with the commission of a crime, while a Zamboanguea, the guilty party in appellants eyes, was not, is insufficient to support a conclusion that the prosecution officers denied appellant equal protection of the laws. There is also common sense practicality in sustaining appellants prosecution. While all persons accused of crime are to be treated on a basis of equality before the law, it does not follow that they are to be protected in the commission of crime. It would be unconscionable, for instance, to excuse a defendant guilty of murder because others have murdered with impunity. The remedy for unequal enforcement of the law in such instances does not lie in the exoneration of the guilty at the expense of society x x x. Protection of the law will be extended to all persons equally in the pursuit of their lawful occupations, but no person has the right to demand protection of the law in the commission of a crime. Likewise, [i]f the failure of prosecutors to enforce the criminal laws as to some persons should be converted into a defense for others charged with crime, the result would be that the trial of the district attorney for nonfeasance would become an issue in the trial of many persons charged with heinous crimes and the enforcement of law would suffer a complete breakdown. (Emphasis ours.)

In the case at bar, no evidence of a clear and intentional discrimination against petitioner was shown, whether by Prosecution Attorney Torrevillas in recommending the filing of Information against petitioner or by the CTA First Division in denying petitioners Motion to Quash. The only basis for petitioners claim of denial of equal protection of the laws was the dismissal of the charges against Velasquez while those against her were not. And lastly, the Resolutions of the CTA First Division dated 23 February 2006 and 11 May 2006 directly addressed the arguments raised by petitioner in her Motion to Quash and Motion for Reconsideration, respectively, and explained the reasons for the denial of both Motions. There is nothing to sustain a finding that these Resolutions were rendered capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily, as to constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In sum, the CTA en banc did not err in denying petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review. Petitioner cannot file a Petition for Review with the CTA en banc to appeal the Resolution of the CTA First Division denying her Motion to Quash. The Resolution is interlocutory and, thus, unappealable. Even if her Petition for Review is to be treated as a petition for certiorari, it is dismissible for lack of merit. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

Republic SUPREME Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 143076

of

the

Philippines COURT

June 10, 2003

PHILIPPINE RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES ASSOCIATION, INC. (PHILRECA); AGUSAN DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ANECO); ILOILO I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ILECO I); and ISABELA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ISELCO I), petitioners, vs. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, and THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, respondents. DECISION PUNO, J.: This is a petition for Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order seeking to annul as unconstitutional sections 193 and 234 of R.A. No. 7160 otherwise known as the Local Government Code.

On May 23, 2000, a class suit was filed by petitioners in their own behalf and in behalf of other electric cooperatives organized and existing under P.D. No. 269 who are members of petitioner Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association, Inc. (PHILRECA). Petitioner PHILRECA is an association of 119 electric cooperatives throughout the country. Petitioners Agusan del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ANECO), Iloilo I Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ILECO I) and Isabela I Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ISELCO I) are non-stock, non-profit electric cooperatives organized and existing under P.D. No. 269, as amended, and registered with the National Electrification Administration (NEA). Under P.D. No. 269, as amended, or the National Electrification Administration Decree, it is the declared policy of the State to provide "the total electrification of the Philippines on an area coverage basis" the same "being vital to the people and the sound development of the nation."1 Pursuant to this policy, P.D. No. 269 aims to "promote, encourage and assist all public service entities engaged in supplying electric service, particularly electric cooperatives" by "giving every tenable support and assistance" to the electric cooperatives coming within the purview of the law.2 Accordingly, Section 39 of P.D. No. 269 provides for the following tax incentives to electric cooperatives: SECTION 39. Assistance to Cooperatives; Exemption from Taxes, Imposts, Duties, Fees; Assistance from the National Power Corporation. Pursuant to the national policy declared in Section 2, the Congress hereby finds and declares that the following assistance to cooperative is necessary and appropriate: (a) Provided that it operates in conformity with the purposes and provisions of this Decree, cooperatives (1) shall be permanently exempt from paying income taxes, and (2) for a period ending on December 31 of the thirtieth full calendar year after the date of a cooperative's organization or conversion hereunder, or until it shall become completely free of indebtedness incurred by borrowing, whichever event first occurs, shall be exempt from the payment (a) of all National Government, local government and municipal taxes and fees, including franchise, filing, recordation, license or permit fees or taxes and any fees, charges, or costs involved in any court or administrative proceeding in which it may be a party, and (b) of all duties or imposts on foreign goods acquired for its operations , the period of such exemption for a new cooperative formed by consolidation, as provided for in Section 29, to begin from as of the date of the beginning of such period for the constituent consolidating cooperative which was most recently organized or converted under this Decree: Provided, That the Board of Administrators shall, after consultation with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, promulgate rules and regulations for the proper implementation of the tax exemptions provided for in this Decree. .3 From 1971 to 1978, in order to finance the electrification projects envisioned by P.D. No. 269, as amended, the Philippine Government, acting through the National Economic Council (now National Economic Development Authority) and the NEA, entered into six (6) loan agreements with the government of the United States of America through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) with electric cooperatives, including petitioners ANECO, ILECO I and ISELCO I, as beneficiaries. The six (6) loan agreements involved a total amount of approximately US$86,000,000.00. These loan agreements are existing until today.

The loan agreements contain similarly worded provisions on the tax application of the loan and any property or commodity acquired through the proceeds of the loan. Thus, Section 6.5 of A.I.D. Loan No. 492-H-027 dated November 15, 1971 provides: Section 6.5. Taxes and Duties. The Borrower covenants and agrees that this Loan Agreement and the Loan provided for herein shall be free from, and the Principal and interest shall be paid to A.I.D. without deduction for and free from, any taxation or fees imposed under any laws or decrees in effect within the Republic of the Philippines or any such taxes or fees so imposed or payable shall be reimbursed by the Borrower with funds other than those provided under the Loan. To the extent that (a) any contractor, including any consulting firm, any personnel of such contractor financed hereunder, and any property or transactions relating to such contracts and (b) any commodity procurement transactions financed hereunder, are not exempt from identifiable taxes, tariffs, duties and other levies imposed under laws in effect in the country of the Borrower, the Borrower and/or Beneficiary shall pay or reimburse the same with funds other than those provided under the Loan.4 Petitioners contend that pursuant to the provisions of P.D. No. 269, as amended, and the above-mentioned provision in the loan agreements, they are exempt from payment of local taxes, including payment of real property tax. With the passage of the Local Government Code, however, they allege that their tax exemptions have been invalidly withdrawn. In particular, petitioners assail Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code on the ground that the said provisions discriminate against them, in violation of the equal protection clause. Further, they submit that the said provisions are unconstitutional because they impair the obligation of contracts between the Philippine Government and the United States Government. On July 25, 2000 we issued a Temporary Restraining Order.5 We note that the instant action was filed directly to this Court, in disregard of the rule on hierarchy of courts. However, we opt to take primary jurisdiction over the present petition and decide the same on its merits in view of the significant constitutional issues raised by the parties dealing with the tax treatment of cooperatives under existing laws and in the interest of speedy justice and prompt disposition of the matter. I There is No Violation of the Equal Protection Clause The pertinent parts of Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code provide: 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 and 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. . Section 234. Exemptions from real property tax.The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax: .

(d) All real property owned by duly registered cooperatives as provided for under R.A. No. 6938; and . Except as provided herein, any exemption from payment of real property tax previously granted to, or presently enjoyed by, all persons whether natural or juridical, including all governmentowned and controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon effectivity of this Code.6 Petitioners argue that the above provisions of the Local Government Code are unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause. Allegedly, said provisions unduly discriminate against petitioners who are duly registered cooperatives under P.D. No. 269, as amended, and not under R.A. No. 6938 or the Cooperative Code of the Philippines. They stress that cooperatives registered under R.A. No. 6938 are singled out for tax exemption privileges under the Local Government Code. They maintain that electric cooperatives registered with the NEA under P.D. No. 269, as amended, and electric cooperatives registered with the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) under R.A. No. 6938 are similarly situated for the following reasons: a) petitioners are registered with the NEA which is a government agency like the CDA; b) petitioners, like CDA-registered cooperatives, operate for service to their member-consumers; and c) prior to the enactment of the Local Government Code, petitioners, like CDA-registered cooperatives, were already tax-exempt.7 Thus, petitioners contend that to grant tax exemptions from local government taxes, including real property tax under Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code only to registered cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938 is a violation of the equal protection clause. We are not persuaded. The equal protection clause under the Constitution means that "no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances." 8 Thus, the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a law based on reasonable classification. Classification, to be reasonable, must (1) rest on substantial distinctions; (2) be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) apply equally to all members of the same class.9 We hold that there is reasonable classification under the Local Government Code to justify the different tax treatment between electric cooperatives covered by P.D. No. 269, as amended, and electric cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938. First, substantial distinctions exist between cooperatives under P.D. No. 269, as amended, and cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938. These distinctions are manifest in at least two material respects which go into the nature of cooperatives envisioned by R.A. No. 6938 and which characteristics are not present in the type of cooperative associations created under P.D. No. 269, as amended. a. Capital Contributions by Members A cooperative under R.A. No. 6938 is defined as: [A] duly registered association of persons with a common bond of interest, who have voluntarily joined together to achieve a lawful common or social economic end, making equitable

contributions to the capital required and accepting a fair share of the risks and benefits of the undertaking in accordance with universally accepted cooperative principles.10 The above definition provides for the following elements of a cooperative: a) association of persons; b) common bond of interest; c) voluntary association; d) lawful common social or economic end; e) capital contributions; f) fair share of risks and benefits; g) adherence to cooperative values; and g) registration with the appropriate government authority.11 The importance of capital contributions by members of a cooperative under R.A. No. 6938 was emphasized during the Senate deliberations as one of the key factors which distinguished electric cooperatives under P.D. No. 269, as amended, from electric cooperatives under the Cooperative Code. Thus: Senator Osmea. Will this Code, Mr. President, cover electric cooperatives as they exist in the country today and are administered by the National Electrification Administration? Senator Aquino. That cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, Mr. President. The answer will depend on what provisions we will eventually come up with. Electric cooperatives as they exist today would not fall under the term "cooperative" as used in this bill because the concept of a cooperative is that which adheres and practices certain cooperative principles. . . Senator Aquino. To begin with, one of the most important requirements, Mr. President, is the principle where members bind themselves to help themselves. It is because of their collectivity that they can have some economic benefits. In this particular case [cooperatives under P.D. No. 269], the government is the one that funds these so-called electric cooperatives. . Senator Aquino. That is why in Article III we have the following definition: A cooperative is an association of persons with a common bond of interest who have voluntarily joined together to achieve a common social or economic end, making equitable contributions to the capital required. In this particular case [cooperatives under P.D. No. 269], Mr. President, the members do not make substantial contribution to the capital required. It is the government that puts in the capital, in most cases. . Senator Osmea. Under line 6, Mr. President, making equitable contributions to the capital required would exclude electric cooperatives [under P.D. No. 269]. Because the membership does not make equitable contributions. Senator Aquino. Yes, Mr. President. This is precisely what I mean, that electric cooperatives [under P.D. No. 269] do not qualify in the spirit of cooperatives. That is the reason why they should be eventually assessed whether they intend to comply with the cooperatives or not.

Because, if after giving them a second time, they do not comply, then, they should not be classified as cooperatives. Senator Osmea. Mr. President, the measure of their qualifying as a cooperative would be the requirement that a member of the electric cooperative must contribute a pro rata share of the capital of the cooperative in cash to be a cooperative.12 Nowhere in P.D. No. 269, as amended, does it require cooperatives to make equitable contributions to capital. Petitioners themselves admit that to qualify as a member of an electric cooperative under P.D. No. 269, only the payment of a P5.00 membership fee is required which is even refundable the moment the member is no longer interested in getting electric service from the cooperative or will transfer to another place outside the area covered by the cooperative.13 However, under the Cooperative Code, the articles of cooperation of a cooperative applying for registration must be accompanied with the bonds of the accountable officers and a sworn statement of the treasurer elected by the subscribers showing that at least twenty-five per cent (25%) of the authorized share capital has been subscribed and at least twenty-five per cent (25%) of the total subscription has been paid and in no case shall the paidup share capital be less than Two thousand pesos (P2,000.00).14 b. Extent of Government Control over Cooperatives Another principle adhered to by the Cooperative Code is the principle of subsidiarity. Pursuant to this principle, the government may only engage in development activities where cooperatives do not posses the capability nor the resources to do so and only upon the request of such cooperatives.15 Thus, Article 2 of the Cooperative Code provides: Art. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is the declared policy of the State to foster the creation and growth of cooperatives as a practical vehicle for prompting self-reliance and harnessing people power towards the attainment of economic development and social justice. The State shall encourage the private sector to undertake the actual formation and organization to cooperatives and shall create an atmosphere that is conducive to the growth and development of these cooperatives. Towards this end, the Government and all its branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies shall ensure the provision of technical guidance, financial assistance and other services to enable said cooperatives to develop into viable and responsive economic enterprises and thereby bring about a strong cooperative movement that is free from any conditions that might infringe upon the autonomy or organizational integrity of cooperatives. Further, the State recognizes the principle of subsidiarity under which the cooperative sector will initiate and regulate within its own ranks the promotion and organization, training and research, audit and support services relating to cooperatives with government assistance where necessary.16 Accordingly, under the charter of the CDA, or the primary government agency tasked to promote and regulate the institutional development of cooperatives, it is the declared policy of the State that: [g]overnment assistance to cooperatives shall be free from any restriction and conditionality that may in any manner infringe upon the objectives and character of

cooperatives as provided in this Act. The State shall, except as provided in this Act, maintain the policy of noninterference in the management and operation of cooperatives.17 In contrast, P.D. No. 269, as amended by P.D. No. 1645, is replete with provisions which grant the NEA, upon the happening of certain events, the power to control and take over the management and operations of cooperatives registered under it. Thus: a) the NEA Administrator has the power to designate, subject to the confirmation of the Board of Administrators, an Acting General Manager and/or Project Supervisor for a cooperative where vacancies in the said positions occur and/or when the interest of the cooperative or the program so requires, and to prescribe the functions of the said Acting General Manager and/or Project Supervisor, which powers shall not be nullified, altered or diminished by any policy or resolution of the Board of Directors of the cooperative concerned;18 b) the NEA is given the power of supervision and control over electric cooperatives and pursuant to such powers, NEA may issue orders, rules and regulations motu propio or upon petition of third parties to conduct referenda and other similar actions in all matters affecting electric cooperatives;19 c) No cooperative shall borrow money from any source without the approval of the Board of Administrators of the NEA;20 and d) The management of a cooperative shall be vested in its Board, subject to the supervision and control of NEA which shall have the right to be represented and to participate in all Board meetings and deliberations and to approve all policies and resolutions.21 The extent of government control over electric cooperatives covered by P.D. No. 269, as amended, is largely a function of the role of the NEA as a primary source of funds of these electric cooperatives. It is crystal clear that NEA incurred loans from various sources to finance the development and operations of the electric cooperatives. Consequently, amendments to P.D. No. 269 were primarily geared to expand the powers of the NEA over the electric cooperatives to ensure that loans granted to them would be repaid to the government. In contrast, cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938 are envisioned to be self-sufficient and independent organizations with minimal government intervention or regulation. To be sure, the transitory provisions of R.A. No. 6938 are indicative of the recognition by Congress of the fundamental distinctions between electric cooperatives organized under P.D No. 269, as amended, and cooperatives under the new Cooperative Code. Article 128 of the Cooperative Code provides that all cooperatives registered under previous laws shall be deemed registered with the CDA upon submission of certain requirements within one year. However, cooperatives created under P.D. No. 269, as amended, are given three years within which to qualify and register with the CDA, after which, provisions of P.D. No. 1645 which expand the powers of the NEA over electric cooperatives, would no longer apply.22 Second, the classification of tax-exempt entities in the Local Government Code is germane to the purpose of the law. The Constitutional mandate that every local government unit shall enjoy local autonomy, does not mean that the exercise of power by local governments is beyond regulation by Congress. Thus, while each government unit is granted the power to create its

own sources of revenue, Congress, in light of its broad power to tax, has the discretion to determine the extent of the taxing powers of local government units consistent with the policy of local autonomy.23 Section 193 of the Local Government Code is indicative of the legislative intent to vest broad taxing powers upon local government units and to limit exemptions from local taxation to entities specifically provided therein. Section 193 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 and 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.24 The above provision effectively withdraws exemptions from local taxation enjoyed by various entities and organizations upon effectivity of the Local Government Code except for a) local water districts; b) cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938; and c) non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions. Further, with respect to real property taxes, the Local Government Code again specifically enumerates entities which are exempt therefrom and withdraws exemptions enjoyed by all other entities upon the effectivity of the code. Thus, Section 234 provides: SEC. 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax: (a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof had been granted for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person; (b) Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, nonprofit or religious cemeteries and all lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes; (c) All machineries and equipment that are actually, directly and exclusively used by local water districts and government-owned or controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power; (d) All real property owned by duly registered cooperatives as provided for under R.A. No. 6938; and (e) Machinery and equipment used for pollution control and environmental protection. Except as provided herein, any exemption from payment of real property tax previously granted to, or presently enjoyed by, all persons, whether natural or juridical, including all governmentowned or controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code.25 In Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Marcos, 26 this Court held that the limited and restrictive nature of the tax exemption privileges under the Local Government Code is consistent with the State policy to ensure autonomy of local governments and the objective of the Local Government Code to grant genuine and meaningful autonomy to enable local

government units to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them effective partners in the attainment of national goals. The obvious intention of the law is to broaden the tax base of local government units to assure them of substantial sources of revenue. While we understand petitioners predicament brought about by the withdrawal of their local tax exemption privileges under the Local Government Code, it is not the province of this Court to go into the wisdom of legislative enactments. Courts can only interpret laws. The principle of separation of powers prevents them from re-inventing the laws. Finally, Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code permit reasonable classification as these exemptions are not limited to existing conditions and apply equally to all members of the same class. Exemptions from local taxation, including real property tax, are granted to all cooperatives covered by R.A. No. 6938 and such exemptions exist for as long as the Local Government Code and the provisions therein on local taxation remain good law. II There is No Violation of the Non-Impairment Clause It is ingrained in jurisprudence that the constitutional prohibition on the impairment of the obligation of contracts does not prohibit every change in existing laws. To fall within the prohibition, the change must not only impair the obligation of the existing contract, but the impairment must be substantial.27 What constitutes substantial impairment was explained by this Court in Clemons v. Nolting:28 A law which changes the terms of a legal contract between parties, either in the time or mode of performance, or imposes new conditions, or dispenses with those expressed, or authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms, is law which impairs the obligation of a contract and is therefore null and void. Moreover, to constitute impairment, the law must affect a change in the rights of the parties with reference to each other and not with respect to non-parties.29 Petitioners insist that Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code impair the obligations imposed under the six (6) loan agreements executed by the NEA as borrower and USAID as lender. All six agreements contain similarly worded provisions on the tax treatment of the proceeds of the loan and properties and commodities acquired through the loan. Thus: Section 6.5. Taxes and Duties. The Borrower covenants and agrees that this Loan Agreement and the Loan provided for herein shall be free from, and the Principal and interest shall be paid to A.I.D. without deduction for and free from, any taxation or fees imposed under any laws or decrees in effect within the Republic of the Philippines or any such taxes or fees so imposed or payable shall be reimbursed by the Borrower with funds other than those provided under the Loan. To the extent that (a) any contractor, including any consulting firm, any personnel of such contractor financed hereunder, and any property or transactions relating to such contracts and (b) any commodity procurement transactions financed hereunder, are not exempt from identifiable taxes, tariffs, duties and other levies imposed under laws in effect in the country of the Borrower, the Borrower and/or Beneficiary shall pay or reimburse the same with funds other than those provided under the Loan.30

Petitioners contend that the withdrawal by the Local Government Code of the tax exemptions of cooperatives under P.D. No. 269, as amended, is an impairment of the tax exemptions provided under the loan agreements. Petitioners argue that as beneficiaries of the loan proceeds, pursuant to the above provision, "[a]ll the assets of petitioners, such as lands, buildings, distribution lines acquired through the proceeds of the Loan Agreements are tax exempt."31 We hold otherwise. A plain reading of the provision quoted above readily shows that it does not grant any tax exemption in favor of the borrower or the beneficiary either on the proceeds of the loan itself or the properties acquired through the said loan. It simply states that the loan proceeds and the principal and interest of the loan, upon repayment by the borrower, shall be without deduction of any tax or fee that may be payable under Philippine law as such tax or fee will be absorbed by the borrower with funds other than the loan proceeds. Further, the provision states that with respect to any payment made by the borrower to (1) any contractor or any personnel of such contractor or any property transaction and (2) any commodity transaction using the proceeds of the loan, the tax to be paid, if any, on such transactions shall be absorbed by the borrower and/or beneficiary through funds other than the loan proceeds. Beyond doubt, the import of the tax provision in the loan agreements cited by petitioners is twofold: (1) the borrower is entitled to receive from and is obliged to pay the lender the principal amount of the loan and the interest thereon in full, without any deduction of the tax component thereof imposed under applicable Philippine law and any tax imposed shall be paid by the borrower with funds other than the loan proceeds and (2) with respect to payments made to any contractor, its personnel or any property or commodity transaction entered into pursuant to the loan agreement and with the use of the proceeds thereof, taxes payable under the said transactions shall be paid by the borrower and/or beneficiary with the use of funds other than the loan proceeds. The quoted provision does not purport to grant any tax exemption in favor of any party to the contract, including the beneficiaries thereof. The provisions simply shift the tax burden, if any, on the transactions under the loan agreements to the borrower and/or beneficiary of the loan. Thus, the withdrawal by the Local Government Code under Sections 193 and 234 of the tax exemptions previously enjoyed by petitioners does not impair the obligation of the borrower, the lender or the beneficiary under the loan agreements as in fact, no tax exemption is granted therein. III Conclusion Petitioners lament the difficulties they face in complying with the implementing rules and regulations issued by the CDA for the conversion of electric cooperatives under P.D. No. 269, as amended, to cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938. They allege that because of the cumbersome legal and technical requirements imposed by the Omnibus Rules and Regulations on the Registration of Electric Cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938, petitioners cannot register and convert as stock cooperatives under the Cooperative Code.32 The Court understands the plight of the petitioners. Their remedy, however, is not judicial.1wphi1 Striking down Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code as unconstitutional or declaring them inapplicable to petitioners is not the proper course of action for them to obtain their previous tax exemptions. The language of the law and the intention of its framers are clear and unequivocal and courts have no other duty except to uphold the law. The

task to re-examine the rules and guidelines on the conversion of electric cooperatives to cooperatives under R.A. No. 6938 and provide every assistance available to them should be addressed by the proper authorities of government. This is necessary to encourage the growth and viability of cooperatives as instruments of social justice and economic development. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the temporary restraining order heretofore issued is LIFTED. SO ORDERED.

ABAKADA Guro Party List v PurisimaG.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008FACTS: 1.

This petition for prohibition

seeks to prevent respondents from implementing and enforcing Republic Act (RA) 9335

(Attrition Actof 2005).RA 9335 was enacted to optimize the revenue-generation capability and collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and theBureau of Customs (BOC). The law intends to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets byproviding a system of rewards and sanctions through the creation of a Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund) and a RevenuePerformance Evaluation Board (Board). It covers all officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC with at least six months of service, regardless of employment status2.

Petitioners, invoking their right as taxpayers filed this petition challenging the constitutionality of RA 9335, a tax reformlegislation. They contend that, by establishing a system of rewards and incentives, the law "transform[s] the officials andemployees of the BIR and the BOC into mercenaries and bounty hunters" as they will do their best only in consideration of suchrewards. Petitioners also assail the creation of a congressional oversight committee on the ground that it violates the doctrineof separation of powers, for it permits legislative participation in the implementation and enforcement of the law. ISSUE:

WON the joint congressional committee is valid and constitutional HELD: No. It is unconstitutional.In the case of Macalintal, in the discussion of J. Puno, the power of oversight embraces all activities undertaken by Congress to enhanceits understanding of and influence over the implementation of legislation it has enacted. Clearly, oversight concerns post-enactment measures undertaken by Congress: (a) to monitor bureaucratic compliance with program objectives, (b) to determine whether agenciesare properly administered, (c) to eliminate executive waste and dishonesty, (d) to prevent executive usurpation of legislative authority,and (d) to assess executive conformity with the congressional perception of public interest. The power of oversight has been held to beintrinsic in the grant of legislative power itself and integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of governmentWith this backdrop, it is clear that congressional oversight is not unconstitutional per se , meaning, it neither necessarily constitutes anencroachment on the executive power to implement laws nor undermines the constitutional separation of powers. Rather, it is integral tothe checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of government. It may in fact even enhance the separation of powers as itprevents the over-accumulation of power in the executive branch. However, to forestall the danger of congressional encroachment "beyond the legislative sphere," the Constitution imposes two basicand related constraints on Congress . It may not vest itself, any of its committees or its members with either executive or judicial power.

And, when it exercises its legislative power, it must follow the "single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedures" specifiedunder the Constitution including the procedure for enactment of laws and presentment.Thus, any post-enactment congressional measure such as this should be limited to scrutiny and investigation. In particular, congressionaloversight must be confined to the following:(1) scrutiny based primarily on Congress' power of appropriation and the budget hearings conducted in connection withit, its power to ask heads of departments to appear before and be heard by either of its Houses on any matterpertaining to their departments and its power of confirmation and(2) investigation and monitoring

of the implementation of laws pursuant to the power of Congress to conduct inquiries inaid of legislation. Any action or step beyond that will undermine the separation of powers guaranteed by the Constitution. Legislative vetoes fall in thisclass. Legislative veto is a statutory provision requiring the President or an administrative agency to present the proposed implementing rules andregulations of a law to Congress which, by itself or through a committee formed by it, retains a "right" or "power" to approve or disapprovesuch regulations before they take effect. As such, a legislative veto in the form of a congressional oversight committee is in the form of aninward-turning delegation designed to attach a congressional leash (other than through scrutiny and investigation) to an agency to whichCongress has by law initially delegated broad powers. It radically changes the design or structure of the Constitution's diagram of power asit entrusts to Congress a direct role in enforcing, applying or implementing its own laws

Republic SUPREME Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 150947

of

the

Philippines COURT

July 15, 2003 REVENUE, petitioner,

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL vs. MICHEL J. LHUILLIER PAWNSHOP, INC., respondent. DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:

Are pawnshops included in the term lending investors for the purpose of imposing the 5% percentage tax under then Section 116 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1977, as amended by Executive Order No. 273? Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) filed the instant petition for review to set aside the decision1 of 20 November 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 62463, which affirmed the decision of 13 December 2000 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in CTA Case No. 5690 cancelling the assessment issued against respondent Michel J. Lhuillier Pawnshop, Inc. (hereafter Lhuillier) in the amount of P3,360,335.11 as deficiency percentage tax for 1994, inclusive of interest and surcharges. The facts are as follows:

On 11 March 1991, CIR Jose U. Ong issued Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 15-91 imposing a 5% lending investors tax on pawnshops; thus: A restudy of P.D. [No.] 114 shows that the principal activity of pawnshops is lending money at interest and incidentally accepting a "pawn" of personal property delivered by the pawner to the pawnee as security for the loan.(Sec. 3, Ibid). Clearly, this makes pawnshop business akin to lending investors business activity which is broad enough to encompass the business of lending money at interest by any person whether natural or juridical. Such being the case, pawnshops shall be subject to the 5% lending investors tax based on their gross income pursuant to Section 116 of the Tax Code, as amended. This RMO was clarified by Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 43-91 on 27 May 1991, which reads: 1. RM[O] 15-91 dated March 11, 1991. This Circular subjects to the 5% lending investors tax the gross income of pawnshops pursuant to Section 116 of the Tax Code, and it thus revokes BIR Ruling No[]. 6-90, and VAT Ruling Nos. 22-90 and 67-90. In order to have a uniform cut-off date, avoid unfairness on the part of tax- payers if they are required to pay the tax on past transactions, and so as to give meaning to the express provisions of Section 246 of the Tax Code, pawnshop owners or operators shall become liable to the lending investors tax on their gross income beginning January 1, 1991. Since the deadline for the filing of percentage tax return (BIR Form No. 2529A-0) and the payment of the tax on lending investors covering the first calendar quarter of 1991 has already lapsed, taxpayers are given up to June 30, 1991 within which to pay the said tax without penalty. If the tax is paid after June 30, 1991, the corresponding penalties shall be assessed and computed from April 21, 1991. Since pawnshops are considered as lending investors effective January 1, 1991, they also become subject to documentary stamp taxes prescribed in Title VII of the Tax Code. BIR Ruling No. 325-88 dated July 13, 1988 is hereby revoked. On 11 September 1997, pursuant to these issuances, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued Assessment Notice No. 81-PT-13-94-97-9-118 against Lhuillier demanding payment of deficiency percentage tax in the sum ofP3,360,335.11 for 1994 inclusive of interest and surcharges. On 3 October 1997, Lhuillier filed an administrative protest with the Office of the Revenue Regional Director contending that (1) neither the Tax Code nor the VAT Law expressly imposes 5% percentage tax on the gross income of pawnshops; (2) pawnshops are different from lending investors, which are subject to the 5% percentage tax under the specific provision of the Tax Code; (3) RMO No. 15-91 is not implementing any provision of the Internal Revenue laws but is a new and additional tax measure on pawnshops, which only Congress could enact; (4) RMO No. 15-91 impliedly amends the Tax Code and is therefore taxation by implication, which is proscribed by law; and (5) RMO No. 15-91 is a "class legislation" because it singles out pawnshops among other lending and financial operations.

On 12 October 1998, Deputy BIR Commissioner Romeo S. Panganiban issued Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy No. 81-043-98 against Lhuilliers property for the enforcement and payment of the assessed percentage tax. Its protest having been unacted upon, Lhuillier, in a letter dated 3 March 1998, elevated the matter to the CIR. Still, the protest was not acted upon by the CIR. Thus, on 11 November 1998, Lhuillier filed a "Notice and Memorandum on Appeal" with the Court of Tax Appeals invoking Section 228 of Republic Act No. 8424, otherwise known as the Tax Reform Act of 1997, which provides: Section 228. Protesting of Assessment. If the protest is denied in whole or in part, or is not acted upon within one hundred eighty (180) days from submission of documents, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from receipt of the said decision, or from the lapse of the one hundred eighty (180)-day period; otherwise, the decision shall become final, executory and demandable. The case was docketed as CTA Case No. 5690. On 19 November 1998, the CIR filed with the CTA a motion to dismiss Lhuilliers petition on the ground that it did not state a cause of action, as there was no action yet on the protest. Lhuillier opposed the motion to dismiss and moved for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction praying that the BIR be enjoined from enforcing the warrant of distraint and levy. For Lhuilliers failure to appear on the scheduled date of hearing, the CTA denied the motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. However, on Lhuilliers motion for reconsideration, said denial was set aside and a hearing on the motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction was set. On 30 June 1999, after due hearing, the CTA denied the CIRs motion to dismiss and granted Lhuilliers motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. On 13 December 2000, the CTA rendered a decision declaring (1) RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91 null and void insofar as they classify pawnshops as lending investors subject to 5% percentage tax; and (2) Assessment Notice No. 81-PT-13-94-97-9-118 as cancelled, withdrawn, and with no force and effect.2 Dissatisfied, the CIR filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals praying that the aforesaid decision be reversed and set aside and another one be rendered ordering Lhuillier to pay the 5% lending investors tax for 1994 with interests and surcharges. Upon due consideration of the issues presented by the parties in their respective memoranda, the Court of Appeals affirmed the CTA decision on 20 November 2001.

The CIR is now before this Court via this petition for review on certiorari, alleging that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that pawnshops are not subject to the 5% lending investors tax. He invokes then Section 116 of the Tax Code, which imposed a 5% percentage tax on lending investors. He argues that the legal definition of lending investors provided in Section 157 (u) of the Tax Code is broad enough to include pawnshop operators. Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 114 states that the principal business activity of a pawnshop is lending money; thus, a pawnshop easily falls under the legal definition of lending investors. RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91, which subject pawnshops to the 5% lending investors tax based on their gross income, are valid. Being mere interpretations of the NIRC, they need not be published. Lastly, the CIR invokes the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Agencia Exquisite of Bohol, Inc.,3 where the Court of Appeals Special Fourteenth Division ruled that a pawnshop is subject to the 5% lending investors tax.4 Lhuillier, on the other hand, maintains that before and after the amendment of the Tax Code by E.O. No. 273, which took effect on 1 January 1988, pawnshops and lending investors were subjected to different tax treatments. Pawnshops were required to pay an annual fixed tax of only P1,000, while lending investors were subject to a 5% percentage tax on their gross income in addition to their fixed annual taxes. Accordingly, during the period from April 1982 up to December 1990, the CIR consistently ruled that a pawnshop is not a lending investor and should not therefore be required to pay percentage tax on its gross income. Lhuillier likewise asserts that RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91 are not implementing rules but are new and additional tax measures, which only Congress is empowered to enact. Besides, they are invalid because they have never been published in the Official Gazette or any newspaper of general circulation. Lhuillier further points out that pawnshops are strictly regulated by the Central Bank pursuant to P.D. No. 114, otherwise known as The Pawnshop Regulation Act. On the other hand, there is no special law governing lending investors. Due to the wide differences between the two, pawnshops had never been considered as lending investors for tax purposes. In fact, in 1994, Congress passed House Bill No. 11197,5 which attempted to amend Section 116 of the NIRC, as amended, to include owners of pawnshops as among those subject to percentage tax. However, the Senate Bill and the subsequent Bicameral Committee version, which eventually became the E-VAT Law, did not incorporate such proposed amendment. Lastly, Lhuillier argues that following the maxim in statutory construction "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," it was not the intention of the Legislature to impose percentage taxes on pawnshops because if it were so, pawnshops would have been included as among the businesses subject to the said tax. Inasmuch as revenue laws impose special burdens upon taxpayers, the enforcement of such laws should not be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. We are therefore called upon to resolve the issue of whether pawnshops are subject to the 5% lending investors tax. Corollary to this issue are the following questions: (1) Are RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91 valid? (2) Were they issued to implement Section 116 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended? (3) Are pawnshops considered "lending investors" for the purpose of the imposition of the lending investors tax? (4) Is publication necessary for the validity of RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91.

RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91 were issued in accordance with the power of the CIR to make rulings and opinions in connection with the implementation of internal revenue laws, which was bestowed by then Section 245 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended by E.O. No. 273. 6 Such power of the CIR cannot be controverted. However, the CIR cannot, in the exercise of such power, issue administrative rulings or circulars not consistent with the law sought to be applied. Indeed, administrative issuances must not override, supplant or modify the law, but must remain consistent with the law they intend to carry out. Only Congress can repeal or amend the law.7 The CIR argues that both issuances are mere rules and regulations implementing then Section 116 of the NIRC, as amended, which provided: SEC. 116. Percentage tax on dealers in securities; lending investors. - Dealers in securities and lending investors shall pay a tax equivalent to six (6) per centum of their gross income. Lending investors shall pay a tax equivalent to five (5%) percent of their gross income. It is clear from the aforequoted provision that pawnshops are not specifically included. Thus, the question is whether pawnshops are considered lending investors for the purpose of imposing percentage tax. We rule in the negative. Incidentally, we observe that both parties, as well as the Court of Tax Appeals and the Court of Appeals, refer to the National Internal Revenue Code as the Tax Code. They did not specify whether the provisions they cited were taken from the NIRC of 1977, as amended, or the NIRC of 1986, as amended. For clarity, it must be pointed out that the NIRC of 1977 as renumbered and rearranged by E.O. No. 273 is a later law than the NIRC of 1986, as amended by P.D. Nos. 1991, 1994, 2006 and 2031. The citation of the specific Code is important for us to determine the intent of the law. Under Section 157(u) of the NIRC of 1986, as amended, the term lending investor includes "all persons who make a practice of lending money for themselves or others at interest." A pawnshop, on the other hand, is defined under Section 3 of P.D. No. 114 as "a person or entity engaged in the business of lending money on personal property delivered as security for loans and shall be synonymous, and may be used interchangeably, with pawnbroker or pawn brokerage." While it is true that pawnshops are engaged in the business of lending money, they are not considered "lending investors" for the purpose of imposing the 5% percentage taxes for the following reasons: First. Under Section 192, paragraph 3, sub-paragraphs (dd) and (ff), of the NIRC of 1977, prior to its amendment by E.O. No. 273, as well as Section 161, paragraph 2, subparagraphs (dd) and (ff), of the NIRC of 1986, pawnshops and lending investors were subjected to different tax treatments; thus: (3) Other Fixed Taxes. The following fixed taxes shall be collected as follows, the amount stated being for the whole year, when not otherwise specified: .

(dd) Lending investors 1. In chartered cities and first class municipalities, one thousand pesos; 2. In second and third class municipalities, five hundred pesos; 3. In fourth and fifth class municipalities and municipal districts, two hundred fifty pesos: Provided, That lending investors who do business as such in more than one province shall pay a tax of one thousand pesos. . (ff) Pawnshops, one thousand pesos (underscoring ours) Second. Congress never intended pawnshops to be treated in the same way as lending investors. Section 116 of the NIRC of 1977, as renumbered and rearranged by E.O. No. 273, was basically lifted from Section 1758 of the NIRC of 1986, which treated both tax subjects differently. Section 175 of the latter Code read as follows: Sec. 175. Percentage tax on dealers in securities, lending investors. -- Dealers in securities shall pay a tax equivalent to six (6%) percent of their gross income. Lending investors shall pay a tax equivalent to five (5%) percent of their gross income. (As amended by P.D. No. 1739, P.D. No. 1959 and P.D. No. 1994). We note that the definition of lending investors found in Section 157 (u) of the NIRC of 1986 is not found in the NIRC of 1977, as amended by E.O. No. 273, where Section 116 invoked by the CIR is found. However, as emphasized earlier, both the NIRC of 1986 and the NIRC of 1977 dealt with pawnshops and lending investors differently. Verily then, it was the intent of Congress to deal with both subjects differently. Hence, we must likewise interpret the statute to conform with such legislative intent. Third. Section 116 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended by E.O. No. 273, subjects to percentage tax dealers in securities and lending investors only. There is no mention of pawnshops. Under the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another thing not mentioned. Thus, if a statute enumerates the things upon which it is to operate, everything else must necessarily and by implication be excluded from its operation and effect.9 This rule, as a guide to probable legislative intent, is based upon the rules of logic and natural workings of the human mind.10 Fourth. The BIR had ruled several times prior to the issuance of RMO No. 15-91 and RMC 4391 that pawnshops were not subject to the 5% percentage tax imposed by Section 116 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended by E.O. No. 273. This was even admitted by the CIR in RMO No. 15-91 itself. Considering that Section 116 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended, was practically lifted from Section 175 of the NIRC of 1986, as amended, and there being no change in the law, the interpretation thereof should not have been altered. It may not be amiss to state that, as pointed out by the respondent, pawnshops was sought to be included as among those subject to 5% percentage tax by House Bill No. 11197 in 1994. Section 13 thereof reads:

Section 13. Section 116 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: "SEC. 116. Percentage tax on dealers in securities; lending investors; OWNERS OF PAWNSHOPS; FOREIGN CURRENCY DEALERS AND/OR MONEY CHANGERS. Dealers in securities shall pay a tax equivalent to Six (6%) per centum of their gross income. Lending investors, OWNERS OF PAWNSHOPS AND FOREIGN CURRENCY DEALERS AND/OR MONEY CHANGERS shall pay a tax equivalent to Five (5%) percent of their gross income." If pawnshops were covered within the term lending investor, there would have been no need to introduce such amendment to include owners of pawnshops. At any rate, such proposed amendment was not adopted. Instead, the approved bill which became R.A. No. 771611 repealed Section 116 of NIRC of 1977, as amended, which was the basis of RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91; thus: SEC. 20. Repealing Clauses. -- The provisions of any special law relative to the rate of franchise taxes are hereby expressly repealed. Sections 113, 114 and 116 of the National Internal Revenue Code are hereby repealed. Section 21 of the same law provides that the law shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation whichever comes earlier. R.A. No. 7716 was published in the Official Gazette on 1 August 199412; in the Journal and Malaya newspapers, on 12 May 1994; and in the Manila Bulletin, on 5 June 1994. Thus, R.A. No. 7716 is deemed effective on 27 May 1994. Since Section 116 of the NIRC of 1977, which breathed life on the questioned administrative issuances, had already been repealed, RMO 15-91 and RMC 43-91, which depended upon it, are deemed automatically repealed. Hence, even granting that pawnshops are included within the term lending investors, the assessment from 27 May 1994 onward would have no leg to stand on. Adding to the invalidity of the RMC No. 43-91 and RMO No. 15-91 is the absence of publication. While the rule-making authority of the CIR is not doubted, like any other government agency, the CIR may not disregard legal requirements or applicable principles in the exercise of quasilegislative powers. Let us first distinguish between two kinds of administrative issuances: the legislative rule and the interpretative rule. A legislative rule is in the nature of subordinate legislation, designed to implement a primary legislation by providing the details thereof. An interpretative rule, on the other hand, is designed to provide guidelines to the law which the administrative agency is in charge of enforcing.13 In Misamis Oriental Association of Coco Traders, Inc. vs. Department of Finance Secretary,14 this Tribunal ruled: In the same way that laws must have the benefit of public hearing, it is generally required that before a legislative rule is adopted there must be hearing. In this connection, the Administrative Code of 1987 provides:

Public Participation. - If not otherwise required by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule. (2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least two weeks before the first hearing thereon. (3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be observed. In addition, such rule must be published. When an administrative rule is merely interpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance, for it gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. When, on the other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can facilitate or render least cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to those directly affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before that new issuance is given the force and effect of law.15 RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91 cannot be viewed simply as implementing rules or corrective measures revoking in the process the previous rulings of past Commissioners. Specifically, they would have been amendatory provisions applicable to pawnshops. Without these disputed CIR issuances, pawnshops would not be liable to pay the 5% percentage tax, considering that they were not specifically included in Section 116 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended. In so doing, the CIR did not simply interpret the law. The due observance of the requirements of notice, hearing, and publication should not have been ignored. There is no need for us to discuss the ruling in CA-G.R. SP No. 59282 entitled Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Agencia Exquisite of Bohol Inc., which upheld the validity of RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91. Suffice it to say that the judgment in that case cannot be binding upon the Supreme Court because it is only a decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court, by tradition and in our system of judicial administration, has the last word on what the law is; it is the final arbiter of any justifiable controversy. There is only one Supreme Court from whose decisions all other courts should take their bearings.16 In view of the foregoing, RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91 are hereby declared null and void. Consequently, Lhuillier is not liable to pay the 5% lending investors tax. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals of 20 November 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 62463 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

Republic SUPREME Manila

of

the

Philippines COURT

THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 127316 October 12, 2000

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF MANILA and the CITY ASSESSOR OF MANILA, respondents. DECISION PANGANIBAN, J.: The Light Rail Transit Authority and the Metro Transit Organization function as service-oriented business entities, which provide valuable transportation facilities to the paying public. In the absence, however, of any express grant of exemption in their favor, they are subject to the payment of real property taxes. The Case In the Petition for Review before us, the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) challenges the November 15, 1996 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 38137, which disposed as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision (dated October 15, 1994) of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against the petitioner."2 The affirmed ruling of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) upheld the June 26, 1992 Resolution of the Board of Assessment Appeals of Manila, which had declared petitioner's carriageways and passenger terminals as improvements subject to real property taxes. The Facts The undisputed facts are quoted by the Court of Appeals (CA) from the CBAA ruling, as follows:3 "1. The LRTA is a government-owned and controlled corporation created and organized under Executive Order No. 603, dated July 12, 1980 'x x x primarily responsible for the construction, operation, maintenance and/or lease of light rail transit system in the Philippines, giving due regard to the [reasonable requirements] of the public transportation of the country' (LRTA vs. The Hon. Commission on Audit, GR No. No. 88365); "2. x x x [B]y reason of x x x Executive Order 603, LRTA acquired real properties x x x constructed structural improvements, such as buildings, carriageways, passenger terminal stations, and installed various kinds of machinery and equipment and facilities for the purpose of its operations;

"3. x x x [F]or x x x an effective maintenance, operation and management, it entered into a Contract of Management with the Meralco Transit Organization (METRO) in which the latter undertook to manage, operate and maintain the Light Rail Transit System owned by the LRTA subject to the specific stipulations contained in said agreement, including payments of a management fee and real property taxes (Add'l Exhibit "I", Records) "4. That it commenced its operations in 1984, and that sometime that year, RespondentAppellee City Assessor of Manila assessed the real properties of [petitioner], consisting of lands, buildings, carriageways and passenger terminal stations, machinery and equipment which he considered real propert[y] under the Real Property Tax Code, to commence with the year 1985; "5. That [petitioner] paid its real property taxes on all its real property holdings, except the carriageways and passenger terminal stations including the land where it is constructed on the ground that the same are not real properties under the Real Property Tax Code, and if the same are real propert[y], these x x x are for public use/purpose, therefore, exempt from realty taxation, which claim was denied by the RespondentAppellee City Assessor of Manila; and "6. x x x [Petitioner], aggrieved by the action of the Respondent-Appellee City Assessor, filed an appeal with the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Manila x x x. Appellee, herein, after due hearing, in its resolution dated June 26, 1992, denied [petitioner's] appeal, and declared that carriageways and passenger terminal stations are improvements, therefore, are real propert[y] under the Code, and not exempt from the payment of real property tax. "A motion for reconsideration filed by [petitioner] was likewise denied." The CA Ruling The Court of Appeals held that petitioner's carriageways and passenger terminal stations constituted real property or improvements thereon and, as such, were taxable under the Real Property Tax Code. The appellate court emphasized that such pieces of property did not fall under any of the exemptions listed in Section 40 of the aforementioned law. The reason was that they were not owned by the government or any government-owned corporation which, as such, was exempt from the payment of real property taxes. True, the government owned the real property upon which the carriageways and terminal stations were built. However, they were still taxable, because beneficial use had been transferred to petitioner, a taxable entity. The CA debunked the argument of petitioner that carriageways and terminals were intended for public use. The former agreed, instead, with the CBAA. The CBAA had concluded that since petitioner was not engaged in purely governmental or public service, the latter's endeavors were proprietary. Indeed, petitioner was deemed as a profit-oriented endeavor, serving as it did, only the paying public. Hence, this Petition.4 The Issues In its Memorandum,5 petitioner urges the Court to resolve the following matters:

"I The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the carriageways and terminal stations of petitioner are not improvements for purposes of the Real Property Tax Code. "II The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not holding that being attached to national roads owned by the national government, subject carriageways and terminal stations should be considered property of the national government. "III The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not holding that payment of charges or fares in the operation of the light rail transit system does not alter the nature of the subject carriageways and terminal stations as devoted for public use. "IV The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in failing to consider the view advanced by the Department of Finance, which takes charge of the overall collection of taxes, that subject carriageways and terminal stations are not subject to realty taxes. "V The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in failing to consider that payment of the realty taxes assessed is not warranted and should the legality of the questioned assessment be upheld, the amount of the realty taxes assessed would far exceed the annual earnings of petitioner, a government corporation." The foregoing all point to one main issue: whether petitioner's carriageways and passenger terminal stations are subject to real property taxes. The Court's Ruling The Petition has no merit. Main May Real Property Taxes be Assessed and Collected? Issue:

The Real Property Tax Code,6 the law in force at the time of the assailed assessment in 1984, mandated that "there shall be levied, assessed and collected in all provinces, cities and municipalities an annual ad valorem taxon real property such as lands, buildings, machinery and other improvements affixed or attached to real property not hereinafter specifically exempted."7 Petitioner does not dispute that its subject carriageways and stations may be considered real property under Article 415 of the Civil Code. However, it resolutely argues that the same are improvements, not of its properties, but of the government-owned national roads to which they are immovably attached. They are thus not taxable as improvements under the Real Property

Tax Code. In essence, it contends that to impose a tax on the carriageways and terminal stations would be to impose taxes on public roads. The argument does not persuade. We quote with approval the solicitor general's astute comment on this matter: "There is no point in clarifying the concept of industrial accession to determine the nature of the property when what is fundamentally important for purposes of tax classification is to determine the character of the property subject [to] tax. The character of tax as a property tax must be determined by its incidents, and form the natural and legal effect thereof. It is irrelevant to associate the carriageways and/or the passenger terminals as accessory improvements when the view of taxability is focused on the character of the property. The latter situation is not a novel issue as it has already been resolved by this Honorable Court in the case of City of Manila vs. IAC (GR No. 71159, November 15, 1989) wherein it was held: 'The New Civil Code divides the properties into property for public and patrimonial property (Art. 423), and further enumerates the property for public use as provincial road, city streets, municipal streets, squares, fountains, public waters, public works for public service paid for by said [provinces], cities or municipalities; all other property is patrimonial without prejudice to provisions of special laws. (Art. 424, Province of Zamboanga v. City of Zamboanga, 22 SCRA 1334 [1968]) xxx '...while the following are corporate or proprietary property in character, viz: 'municipal water works, slaughter houses, markets, stables, bathing establishments, wharves, ferries and fisheries.' Maintenance of parks, golf courses, cemeteries and airports, among others, are also recognized as municipal or city activities of a proprietary character (Dept. of Treasury v. City of Evansville; 60 NE 2nd 952)' "The foregoing enumeration in law does not specify or include carriageway or passenger terminals as inclusive of properties strictly for public use to exempt petitioner's properties from taxes. Precisely, the properties of petitioner are not exclusively considered as public roads being improvements placed upon the public road, and this separability nature of the structure in itself physically distinguishes it from a public road. Considering further that carriageways or passenger terminals are elevated structures which are not freely accessible to the public, viz-aviz roads which are public improvements openly utilized by the public, the former are entirely different from the latter. "The character of petitioner's property, be it an improvements as otherwise distinguished by petitioner, needs no further classification when the law already classified it as patrimonial property that can be subject to tax. This is in line with the old ruling that if the public works is not for such free public service, it is not within the purview of the first paragraph of Art. 424 if the New Civil Code."8 Though the creation of the LRTA was impelled by public service -- to provide mass transportation to alleviate the traffic and transportation situation in Metro Manila -- its operation undeniably partakes of ordinary business. Petitioner is clothed with corporate status and corporate powers in the furtherance of its proprietary objectives. 9Indeed, it operates much like any private corporation engaged in the mass transport industry. Given that it is engaged in a

service-oriented commercial endeavor, its carriageways and terminal stations are patrimonial property subject to tax, notwithstanding its claim of being a government-owned or controlled corporation. True, petitioner's carriageways and terminal stations are anchored, at certain points, on public roads. However, it must be emphasized that these structures do not form part of such roads, since the former have been constructedover the latter in such a way that the flow of vehicular traffic would not be impeded. These carriageways and terminal stations serve a function different from that of the public roads. The former are part and parcel of the light rail transit (LRT) system which, unlike the latter, are not open to use by the general public. The carriageways are accessible only to the LRT trains, while the terminal stations have been built for the convenience of LRTA itself and its customers who pay the required fare. Basis of Assessment Is Actual Use of Real Property Under the Real Property Tax Code, real property is classified for assessment purposes on the basis of actual use,10 which is defined as "the purpose for which the property is principally or predominantly utilized by the person in possession of the property."11 Petitioner argues that it merely operates and maintains the LRT system, and that the actual users of the carriageways and terminal stations are the commuting public. It adds that the public-use character of the LRT is not negated by the fact that revenue is obtained from the latter's operations. We do not agree. Unlike public roads which are open for use by everyone, the LRT is accessible only to those who pay the required fare. It is thus apparent that petitioner does not exist solely for public service, and that the LRT carriageways and terminal stations are not exclusively for public use. Although petitioner is a public utility, it is nonetheless profit-earning. It actually uses those carriageways and terminal stations in its public utility business and earns money therefrom. Petitioner Not Exempt from Payment of Real Property Taxes In any event, there is another legal justification for upholding the assailed CA Decision.1wphi1 Under the Real Property Tax Code, real property "owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions and any government-owned or controlled corporation so exempt by its charter, provided, however, that this exemption shall not apply to real property of the abovenamed entities the beneficial use of which has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person."12 Executive Order No. 603, the charter of petitioner, does not provide for any real estate tax exemption in its favor. Its exemption is limited to direct and indirect taxes, duties or fees in connection with the importation of equipment not locally available, as the following provision shows: "ARTICLE TAX AND DUTY EXEMPTIONS 4

Sec. 8. Equipment, Machineries, Spare Parts and Other Accessories and Materials . - The importation of equipment, machineries, spare parts, accessories and other materials, including

supplies and services, used directly in the operations of the Light Rails Transit System, not obtainable locally on favorable terms, out of any funds of the authority including, as stated in Section 7 above, proceeds from foreign loans credits or indebtedness, shall likewise be exempted from all direct and indirect taxes, customs duties, fees, imposts, tariff duties, compensating taxes, wharfage fees and other charges and restrictions, the provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding." Even granting that the national government indeed owns the carriageways and terminal stations, the exemption would not apply because their beneficial use has been granted to petitioner, a taxable entity. Taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. Any claim for tax exemption is strictly construed against the claimant.13 LRTA has not shown its eligibility for exemption; hence, it is subject to the tax. WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.

Republic SUPREME Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 166408

of

the

Philippines COURT

October 6, 2008 QUEZON CITY, petitioners,

QUEZON CITY and THE CITY TREASURER OF vs. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, respondent. DECISION 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 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) and that2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordering the refund and declaring invalid the imposition and collection of local 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 of Quezon City is primarily responsible for the imposition and collection of taxes within the territorial jurisdiction of Quezon 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. 2464274 2484651 2536134 8354906 48756 67352 Total Date 7/18/1995 10/20/1995 1/22/1996 1/23/1997 1/23/1997 4/3/1997 Amount Paid P 1,489,977.28 1,489,977.28 2,880,975.65 8,621,470.83 2,731,135.81 2,731,135.81 P19,944,672.665

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. 2536134 8354906 0048756 Total Date 1-22-96 1-23-97 1-23-97 Amount Paid P 2,880,975.65 8,621,470.83 2,731,135.81 P14,233,582.296

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. 2464274 2484651 2536134 8354906 0048756 0067352 Total Date 7-18-95 10-20-95 1-22-96 1-23-97 1-23-97 4-03-97 Amount Paid P 1,489,977.28 1,489,977.28 2,880,975.65 8,621,470.83 2,731,135.81 2,731,135.81 P19,944,672.667

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. SP91, 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 ABSCBN 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 13711 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-CBN's contract with the government. The imposition of another

franchise on the corporation by the local authority would constitute an impairment of the former's 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 City's 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-CBN should 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 Court's consideration are more of legal query necessitating a legal opinion rather than a call for adjudication on the matter in dispute. xxxx 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 appellee's 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.17Consequently, 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 1997 Rules 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 RTC over the subject matter of the case. We have a long standing rule that a court's 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 appellant's 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 court's 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 rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great 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 xxxx 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 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: "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 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 [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 government's 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-CBN's 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 taxes ABS-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. David33 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 1/2) 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-CBN's 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-CBN failed to justify its claim for exemption from local franchise tax, by a grant expressed in terms "too plain to be mistaken" its 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-CBN's 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 receipts derived 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. 824137 took effect on January 1, 199738 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 hand, 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. 842439 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-CBN's 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.

MCIAA GR Facts: 120082,

vs. September 11,

Marcos 1996

MCIAA was created by virtue of RA 6958. Since the time of its creator, MCIAA enjoyed the privilege of exemption from payment of realty taxes in accordance with sec. 14 of its charter. On October 11, 1994 however The treasurer of Cebu city demanded payments for realty taxes on several parcels of lands belonging to the petitioners. MCIAA objected to such demand for payment as baseless and unjustified, claiming in its favour Sec. 14 of R.A. 6958 which exempt it from payment of realty taxes. Respondent refuse to cancel MCIAAs tax account, insisting that it is the GOCCs whose tax exemption privilege has been withdrawn by virtue of Sec 193 and 234 of the LGC. Issue: is Ruling: No. Sec 193 LGC prescribe the general rule that they are withdrawn upon the effectivity of the code except those granted to local water districts, cooperative duly registered under R.A. 6938, non-stock, non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, and unless otherwise provided in the LGC the latter provision called only refer to Sec 234 which enumerate the properties exempt from real property tax but the last paragraph of sec 234 further qualifies the retention of the exemption. Only to those enumerated therein. Thus, for petitioner to be exempt must show that the parcels of land in question any of those enumerated in 234. MIAA GR Facts: MIAA operates the NAIA complex in paraaque under EO 903. On June 28, 2001 MIAA received final notices of real estate tax delinquency from the city for the taxable year 1992-2001. Consequently, the city issue notice for levy on the airport land and buildings. MIAA opposed the levy and contended that SEC. 21 of EO 903 specifically exempts it from the vs. 155650 City July of 20, Paraaque 2006 the contention meritorious?