Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    Ii. Compania General de Tabacos vs. Manila, G.R. No. L-16619, 29 June 1963

    Uploaded by

    Marry Lasheras
    The document discusses two Philippine Supreme Court cases: 1) Compania General de Tabacos vs. Manila, a 1963 case. 2) Gerochi vs. Department of Energy, a 2007 case that dealt with whether a Universal Charge imposed under the Electric Power Industry Reform Act was a tax. The court held that the Universal Charge was an exaction imposed under the state's police power and was regulatory rather than a tax. The charge was intended to fund various purposes like paying government debts and ensuring the viability of the electric power industry, making it regulatory in character.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ii. Compania General de Tabacos vs. Manila, G.R. No. L-16619, 29 June 1963

    Uploaded by

    Marry Lasheras
    33 views1 page
    The document discusses two Philippine Supreme Court cases: 1) Compania General de Tabacos vs. Manila, a 1963 case. 2) Gerochi vs. Department of Energy, a 2007 case that dealt with whether a Universal Charge imposed under the Electric Power Industry Reform Act was a tax. The court held that the Universal Charge was an exaction imposed under the state's police power and was regulatory rather than a tax. The charge was intended to fund various purposes like paying government debts and ensuring the viability of the electric power industry, making it regulatory in character.

    Original Title

    GEROCHI DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses two Philippine Supreme Court cases: 1) Compania General de Tabacos vs. Manila, a 1963 case. 2) Gerochi vs. Department of Energy, a 2007 case that dealt with whether a Universal Charge imposed under the Electric Power Industry Reform Act was a tax. The court held that the Universal Charge was an exaction imposed under the state's police power and was regulatory rather than a tax. The charge was intended to fund various purposes like paying government debts and ensuring the viability of the electric power industry, making it regulatory in character.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    33 views1 page

    Ii. Compania General de Tabacos vs. Manila, G.R. No. L-16619, 29 June 1963

    Uploaded by

    Marry Lasheras
    The document discusses two Philippine Supreme Court cases: 1) Compania General de Tabacos vs. Manila, a 1963 case. 2) Gerochi vs. Department of Energy, a 2007 case that dealt with whether a Universal Charge imposed under the Electric Power Industry Reform Act was a tax. The court held that the Universal Charge was an exaction imposed under the state's police power and was regulatory rather than a tax. The charge was intended to fund various purposes like paying government debts and ensuring the viability of the electric power industry, making it regulatory in character.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    II. COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS VS. MANILA, G.R. NO.

    L-16619, 29 JUNE 1963

    III. GEROCHI VS. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, GR NO. 159796, 17 JULY 2007

    FACTS: Congress enacted the EPIRA on June 8, 2001; on June 26, 2001, it took effect.
    The Universal Charge to be collected would serve as payment for government debts,
    missionary electrification, equalization of taxes and royalties applied to renewable
    energy and imported energy, environmental charge and for a charge to account for all
    forms of cross subsidies for a period not exceeding three years. ERC was given complete
    discretionary legislative authority regarding the Universal Charge.
    National Power Corporation Strategic Power Utilities Group (NPC-SPUG) filed a petition
    to the ERC for its share for Missionary Electrification and another for the proposed share
    for the Universal Charge for the Environmental charge be approved for withdrawal
    from the Special Trust Fund (STF) managed by respondent Power Sector Assets and
    Liabilities Management Group (PSALM) for the rehabilitation and management of
    watershed areas. ERC provisionally approved the share of NPC and authorized the
    National Transmission Corporation (TRANSCO) and Distribution Utilities to collect the
    same from its endusers on a monthly basis. NPC filed a motion for reconsideration
    which was granted.
    On the basis of the said ERC decisions, respondent Panay Electric Company, Inc. (PECO)
    charged petitioner Romeo P. Gerochi and all other end-users with the Universal Charge
    as reflected in their respective electric bills. Hence, this petition.
    Petitioners contend that the Universal Charge has the characteristics of a tax and is
    collected to fund the operations of the NPC. They argue that the cases invoked by the
    respondents clearly show the regulatory purpose of the charges imposed therein, which
    is not so in the case at bench. In said cases, the respective funds were created in order
    to balance and stabilize the prices of oil and sugar, and to act as buffer to counteract the
    changes and adjustments in prices, peso devaluation, and other variables which cannot
    be adequately and timely monitored by the legislature

    ISSUE: Whether or not the Universal Charge imposed is a tax

    HELD: In exacting the assailed Universal Charge through Sec. 34 of the EPIRA, the State’s
    police power, particularly its regulatory dimension, is invoked. Such can be deduced
    from Sec. 34 which enumerates the purposes for which the Universal Charge is imposed
    and which can be amply discerned as regulatory in character. From the aforementioned
    purposes, it can be gleaned that the assailed Universal Charge is not a tax, but an
    exaction in the exercise of the State’s police power. Public welfare is surely promoted.
    This feature of the Universal Charge further boosts the position that the same is an
    exaction imposed primarily in pursuit of the State’s police objectives. The STF
    reasonably serves and assures the attainment and perpetuity of the purposes for which
    the Universal Charge is imposed, i.e., to ensure the viability of the country’s electric
    power industry.

    You might also like