Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 120880 June 5, 1997

FERDINAND R. MARCOS II, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, THE COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE and
HERMINIA D. DE GUZMAN, respondents.

TORRES, JR., J.:

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, Government action is once again assailed as precipitate and
unfair, suffering the basic and oftly implored requisites of due process of law. Specifically, the petition
assails the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated November 29, 1994 in CA-G.R. SP No. 31363, where
the said court held:
In view of all the foregoing, we rule that the deficiency income tax assessments and
estate tax assessment, are already final and (u)nappealable-and-the subsequent
levy of real properties is a tax remedy resorted to by the government, sanctioned by
Section 213 and 218 of the National Internal Revenue Code. This summary tax
remedy is distinct and separate from the other tax remedies (such as Judicial Civil
actions and Criminal actions), and is not affected or precluded by the pendency of
any other tax remedies instituted by the government.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the
petition forcertiorari with prayer for Restraining Order and Injunction.
No pronouncements as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
More than seven years since the demise of the late Ferdinand E. Marcos, the former President of
the Republic of the Philippines, the matter of the settlement of his estate, and its dues to the
government in estate taxes, are still unresolved, the latter issue being now before this Court for
resolution. Specifically, petitioner Ferdinand R. Marcos II, the eldest son of the decedent, questions
the actuations of the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue in assessing, and collecting
through the summary remedy of Levy on Real Properties, estate and income tax delinquencies upon
the estate and properties of his father, despite the pendency of the proceedings on probate of the
will of the late president, which is docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 10279 in the Regional Trial Court of
Pasig, Branch 156.
Petitioner had filed with the respondent Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with
an application for writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order on June 28, 1993,
seeking to
I. Annul and set aside the Notices of Levy on real property dated February 22, 1993
and May 20, 1993, issued by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue;
II. Annul and set aside the Notices of Sale dated May 26, 1993;
III. Enjoin the Head Revenue Executive Assistant Director II (Collection Service),
from proceeding with the Auction of the real properties covered by Notices of Sale.

After the parties had pleaded their case, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision 2 on November
29, 1994, ruling that the deficiency assessments for estate and income tax made upon the petitioner and
the estate of the deceased President Marcos have already become final and unappealable, and may thus
be enforced by the summary remedy of levying upon the properties of the late President, as was done by
the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
WHEREFORE, premises considered judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the
petition forCertiorari with prayer for Restraining Order and Injunction.
No pronouncements as to cost.
SO ORDERED.
Unperturbed, petitioner is now before us assailing the validity of the appellate court's decision,
assigning the following as errors:
A. RESPONDENT COURT MANIFESTLY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE
SUMMARY TAX REMEDIES RESORTED TO BY THE GOVERNMENT ARE NOT
AFFECTED AND PRECLUDED BY THE PENDENCY OF THE SPECIAL
PROCEEDING FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE LATE PRESIDENT'S ALLEGED
WILL. TO THE CONTRARY, THIS PROBATE PROCEEDING PRECISELY PLACED
ALL PROPERTIES WHICH FORM PART OF THE LATE PRESIDENT'S ESTATE IN
CUSTODIA LEGIS OF THE PROBATE COURT TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL
OTHER COURTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES.
B. RESPONDENT COURT ARBITRARILY ERRED IN SWEEPINGLY DECIDING
THAT SINCE THE TAX ASSESSMENTS OF PETITIONER AND HIS PARENTS HAD
ALREADY BECOME FINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE, THERE WAS NO NEED TO GO
INTO THE MERITS OF THE GROUNDS CITED IN THE PETITION. INDEPENDENT
OF WHETHER THE TAX ASSESSMENTS HAD ALREADY BECOME FINAL,
HOWEVER, PETITIONER HAS THE RIGHT TO QUESTION THE UNLAWFUL
MANNER AND METHOD IN WHICH TAX COLLECTION IS SOUGHT TO BE
ENFORCED BY RESPONDENTS COMMISSIONER AND DE GUZMAN. THUS,
RESPONDENT COURT SHOULD HAVE FAVORABLY CONSIDERED THE MERITS
OF THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THE PETITION:
(1) The Notices of Levy on Real Property were issued beyond the
period provided in the Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 38-68.
(2) [a] The numerous pending court cases questioning the late
President's ownership or interests in several properties (both
personal and real) make the total value of his estate, and the
consequent estate tax due, incapable of exact pecuniary
determination at this time. Thus, respondents' assessment of the
estate tax and their issuance of the Notices of Levy and Sale are
premature, confiscatory and oppressive.
[b] Petitioner, as one of the late President's compulsory heirs, was
never notified, much less served with copies of the Notices of Levy,
contrary to the mandate of Section 213 of the NIRC. As such,
petitioner was never given an opportunity to contest the Notices in
violation of his right to due process of law.
C. ON ACCOUNT OF THE CLEAR MERIT OF THE PETITION, RESPONDENT
COURT MANIFESTLY ERRED IN RULING THAT IT HAD NO POWER TO GRANT
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO PETITIONER. SECTION 219 OF THE NIRC
NOTWITHSTANDING, COURTS POSSESS THE POWER TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN RESPONDENTS COMMISSIONER'S
AND DE GUZMAN'S ARBITRARY METHOD OF COLLECTING THE ALLEGED
DEFICIENCY ESTATE AND INCOME TAXES BY MEANS OF LEVY.

The facts as found by the appellate court are undisputed, and are hereby adopted:
On September 29, 1989, former President Ferdinand Marcos died in Honolulu,
Hawaii, USA.
On June 27, 1990, a Special Tax Audit Team was created to conduct investigations
and examinations of the tax liabilities and obligations of the late president, as well as
that of his family, associates and "cronies". Said audit team concluded its
investigation with a Memorandum dated July 26, 1991. The investigation disclosed
that the Marcoses failed to file a written notice of the death of the decedent, an estate
tax returns [sic], as well as several income tax returns covering the years 1982 to
1986, all in violation of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).
Subsequently, criminal charges were filed against Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos before the
Regional Trial of Quezon City for violations of Sections 82, 83 and 84 (has penalized
under Sections 253 and 254 in relation to Section 252 a & b) of the National
Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue thereby caused the preparation and filing of
the Estate Tax Return for the estate of the late president, the Income Tax Returns of
the Spouses Marcos for the years 1985 to 1986, and the Income Tax Returns of
petitioner Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos II for the years 1982 to 1985.
On July 26, 1991, the BIR issued the following: (1) Deficiency estate tax assessment
no. FAC-2-89-91-002464 (against the estate of the late president Ferdinand Marcos
in the amount of P23,293,607,638.00 Pesos); (2) Deficiency income tax assessment
no. FAC-1-85-91-002452 and Deficiency income tax assessment no. FAC-1-86-91002451 (against the Spouses Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos in the amounts of
P149,551.70 and P184,009,737.40 representing deficiency income tax for the years
1985 and 1986); (3) Deficiency income tax assessment nos. FAC-1-82-91-002460 to
FAC-1-85-91-002463 (against petitioner Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos II in the
amounts of P258.70 pesos; P9,386.40 Pesos; P4,388.30 Pesos; and P6,376.60
Pesos representing his deficiency income taxes for the years 1982 to 1985).
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue avers that copies of the deficiency estate and
income tax assessments were all personally and constructively served on August 26,
1991 and September 12, 1991 upon Mrs. Imelda Marcos (through her caretaker Mr.
Martinez) at her last known address at No. 204 Ortega St., San Juan, M.M. (Annexes
"D" and "E" of the Petition). Likewise, copies of the deficiency tax assessments
issued against petitioner Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos II were also personally and
constructively served upon him (through his caretaker) on September 12, 1991, at
his last known address at Don Mariano Marcos St. corner P. Guevarra St., San Juan,
M.M. (Annexes "J" and "J-1" of the Petition). Thereafter, Formal Assessment notices
were served on October 20, 1992, upon Mrs. Marcos c/o petitioner, at his office,
House of Representatives, Batasan Pambansa, Quezon City. Moreover, a notice to
Taxpayer inviting Mrs. Marcos (or her duly authorized representative or counsel), to a
conference, was furnished the counsel of Mrs. Marcos, Dean Antonio Coronel but
to no avail.
The deficiency tax assessments were not protested administratively, by Mrs. Marcos
and the other heirs of the late president, within 30 days from service of said
assessments.
On February 22, 1993, the BIR Commissioner issued twenty-two notices of levy on
real property against certain parcels of land owned by the Marcoses to satisfy the
alleged estate tax and deficiency income taxes of Spouses Marcos.
On May 20, 1993, four more Notices of Levy on real property were issued for the
purpose of satisfying the deficiency income taxes.

On May 26, 1993, additional four (4) notices of Levy on real property were again
issued. The foregoing tax remedies were resorted to pursuant to Sections 205 and
213 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).
In response to a letter dated March 12, 1993 sent by Atty. Loreto Ata (counsel of
herein petitioner) calling the attention of the BIR and requesting that they be duly
notified of any action taken by the BIR affecting the interest of their client Ferdinand
"Bongbong" Marcos II, as well as the interest of the late president copies of the
aforesaid notices were, served on April 7, 1993 and on June 10, 1993, upon Mrs.
Imelda Marcos, the petitioner, and their counsel of record, "De Borja, Medialdea, Ata,
Bello, Guevarra and Serapio Law Office".
Notices of sale at public auction were posted on May 26, 1993, at the lobby of the
City Hall of Tacloban City. The public auction for the sale of the eleven (11) parcels of
land took place on July 5, 1993. There being no bidder, the lots were declared
forfeited in favor of the government.
On June 25, 1993, petitioner Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos II filed the instant
petition for certiorariand prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, with prayer
for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction.
It has been repeatedly observed, and not without merit, that the enforcement of tax laws and the
collection of taxes, is of paramount importance for the sustenance of government. Taxes are the
lifeblood of the government and should be collected without unnecessary hindrance. However, such
collection should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for
government itself. It is therefore necessary to reconcile the apparently conflicting interests of the
authorities and the taxpayers so that the real purpose of taxation, which is the promotion of the
common good, may be achieved. 3
Whether or not the proper avenues of assessment and collection of the said tax obligations were
taken by the respondent Bureau is now the subject of the Court's inquiry.
Petitioner posits that notices of levy, notices of sale, and subsequent sale of properties of the late
President Marcos effected by the BIR are null and void for disregarding the established procedure
for the enforcement of taxes due upon the estate of the deceased. The case of Domingo
vs. Garlitos 4 is specifically cited to bolster the argument that "the ordinary procedure by which to settle
claims of indebtedness against the estate of a deceased, person, as in an inheritance (estate) tax, is for
the claimant to present a claim before the probate court so that said court may order the administrator to
pay the amount therefor." This remedy is allegedly, exclusive, and cannot be effected through any other
means.
Petitioner goes further, submitting that the probate court is not precluded from denying a request by
the government for the immediate payment of taxes, and should order the payment of the same only
within the period fixed by the probate court for the payment of all the debts of the decedent. In this
regard, petitioner cites the case of Collector of Internal Revenue vs. The Administratrix of the Estate
of Echarri (67 Phil 502), where it was held that:
The case of Pineda vs. Court of First Instance of Tayabas and Collector of Internal
Revenue (52 Phil 803), relied upon by the petitioner-appellant is good authority on
the proposition that the court having control over the administration proceedings has
jurisdiction to entertain the claim presented by the government for taxes due and to
order the administrator to pay the tax should it find that the assessment was proper,
and that the tax was legal, due and collectible. And the rule laid down in that case
must be understood in relation to the case of Collector of Customs
vs. Haygood, supra., as to the procedure to be followed in a given case by the
government to effectuate the collection of the tax. Categorically stated, where during
the pendency of judicial administration over the estate of a deceased person a claim
for taxes is presented by the government, the court has the authority to order
payment by the administrator; but, in the same way that it has authority to order
payment or satisfaction, it also has the negative authority to deny the same. While

there are cases where courts are required to perform certain duties mandatory and
ministerial in character, the function of the court in a case of the present character is
not one of them; and here, the court cannot be an organism endowed with latitude of
judgment in one direction, and converted into a mere mechanical contrivance in
another direction.
On the other hand, it is argued by the BIR, that the state's authority to collect internal revenue taxes
is paramount. Thus, the pendency of probate proceedings over the estate of the deceased does not
preclude the assessment and collection, through summary remedies, of estate taxes over the same.
According to the respondent, claims for payment of estate and income taxes due and assessed after
the death of the decedent need not be presented in the form of a claim against the estate. These
can and should be paid immediately. The probate court is not the government agency to decide
whether an estate is liable for payment of estate of income taxes. Well-settled is the rule that the
probate court is a court with special and limited jurisdiction.
Concededly, the authority of the Regional Trial Court, sitting, albeit with limited jurisdiction, as a
probate court over estate of deceased individual, is not a trifling thing. The court's jurisdiction, once
invoked, and made effective, cannot be treated with indifference nor should it be ignored with
impunity by the very parties invoking its authority.
In testament to this, it has been held that it is within the jurisdiction of the probate court to approve
the sale of properties of a deceased person by his prospective heirs before final adjudication; 5 to
determine who are the heirs of the decedent; 6 the recognition of a natural child; 7 the status of a woman
claiming to be the legal wife of the decedent; 8the legality of disinheritance of an heir by the testator; 9 and
to pass upon the validity of a waiver of hereditary rights. 10
The pivotal question the court is tasked to resolve refers to the authority of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue to collect by the summary remedy of levying upon, and sale of real properties of the
decedent, estate tax deficiencies, without the cognition and authority of the court sitting in probate
over the supposed will of the deceased.
The nature of the process of estate tax collection has been described as follows:
Strictly speaking, the assessment of an inheritance tax does not directly involve the
administration of a decedent's estate, although it may be viewed as an incident to the
complete settlement of an estate, and, under some statutes, it is made the duty of
the probate court to make the amount of the inheritance tax a part of the final decree
of distribution of the estate. It is not against the property of decedent, nor is it a claim
against the estate as such, but it is against the interest or property right which the
heir, legatee, devisee, etc., has in the property formerly held by decedent. Further,
under some statutes, it has been held that it is not a suit or controversy between the
parties, nor is it an adversary proceeding between the state and the person who
owes the tax on the inheritance. However, under other statutes it has been held that
the hearing and determination of the cash value of the assets and the determination
of the tax are adversary proceedings. The proceeding has been held to be
necessarily a proceeding in rem. 11
In the Philippine experience, the enforcement and collection of estate tax, is executive in character,
as the legislature has seen it fit to ascribe this task to the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Section 3 of
the National Internal Revenue Code attests to this:
Sec. 3. Powers and duties of the Bureau. The powers and duties of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue shall comprehend the assessment and collection of all national
internal revenue taxes, fees, and charges, and the enforcement of all forfeitures,
penalties, and fines connected therewith, including the execution of judgments in all
cases decided in its favor by the Court of Tax Appeals and the ordinary courts. Said
Bureau shall also give effect to and administer the supervisory and police power
conferred to it by this Code or other laws.

Thus, it was in Vera vs. Fernandez 12 that the court recognized the liberal treatment of claims for taxes
charged against the estate of the decedent. Such taxes, we said, were exempted from the application of
the statute of non-claims, and this is justified by the necessity of government funding, immortalized in the
maxim that taxes are the lifeblood of the government. Vectigalia nervi sunt rei publicae taxes are the
sinews of the state.
Taxes assessed against the estate of a deceased person, after administration is
opened, need not be submitted to the committee on claims in the ordinary course of
administration. In the exercise of its control over the administrator, the court may
direct the payment of such taxes upon motion showing that the taxes have been
assessed against the estate.
Such liberal treatment of internal revenue taxes in the probate proceedings extends so far, even to
allowing the enforcement of tax obligations against the heirs of the decedent, even after distribution
of the estate's properties.
Claims for taxes, whether assessed before or after the death of the deceased, can
be collected from the heirs even after the distribution of the properties of the
decedent. They are exempted from the application of the statute of non-claims. The
heirs shall be liable therefor, in proportion to their share in the inheritance. 13
Thus, the Government has two ways of collecting the taxes in question. One, by going
after all the heirs and collecting from each one of them the amount of the tax
proportionate to the inheritance received. Another remedy, pursuant to the lien created by
Section 315 of the Tax Code upon all property and rights to property belong to the
taxpayer for unpaid income tax, is by subjecting said property of the estate which is in the
hands of an heir or transferee to the payment of the tax due the estate. (Commissioner of
Internal Revenue vs. Pineda, 21 SCRA 105, September 15, 1967.)

From the foregoing, it is discernible that the approval of the court, sitting in probate, or as a
settlement tribunal over the deceased is not a mandatory requirement in the collection of estate
taxes. It cannot therefore be argued that the Tax Bureau erred in proceeding with the levying and
sale of the properties allegedly owned by the late President, on the ground that it was required to
seek first the probate court's sanction. There is nothing in the Tax Code, and in the pertinent
remedial laws that implies the necessity of the probate or estate settlement court's approval of the
state's claim for estate taxes, before the same can be enforced and collected.
On the contrary, under Section 87 of the NIRC, it is the probate or settlement court which is bidden
not to authorize the executor or judicial administrator of the decedent's estate to deliver any
distributive share to any party interested in the estate, unless it is shown a Certification by the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue that the estate taxes have been paid. This provision disproves
the petitioner's contention that it is the probate court which approves the assessment and collection
of the estate tax.
If there is any issue as to the validity of the BIR's decision to assess the estate taxes, this should
have been pursued through the proper administrative and judicial avenues provided for by law.
Section 229 of the NIRC tells us how:
Sec. 229. Protesting of assessment. When the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
or his duly authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be assessed, he
shall first notify the taxpayer of his findings. Within a period to be prescribed by
implementing regulations, the taxpayer shall be required to respond to said notice. If
the taxpayer fails to respond, the Commissioner shall issue an assessment based on
his findings.
Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for
reconsideration or reinvestigation in such form and manner as may be prescribed by
implementing regulations within (30) days from receipt of the assessment; otherwise,
the assessment shall become final and unappealable.

If the protest is denied in whole or in part, the individual, association or corporation

adversely affected by the decision on the protest may appeal to the Court of Tax
Appeals within thirty (30) days from receipt of said decision; otherwise, the decision
shall become final, executory and demandable. (As inserted by P.D. 1773)
Apart from failing to file the required estate tax return within the time required for the filing of the
same, petitioner, and the other heirs never questioned the assessments served upon them, allowing
the same to lapse into finality, and prompting the BIR to collect the said taxes by levying upon the
properties left by President Marcos.
Petitioner submits, however, that "while the assessment of taxes may have been validly undertaken
by the Government, collection thereof may have been done in violation of the law. Thus, the manner
and method in which the latter is enforced may be questioned separately, and irrespective of the
finality of the former, because the Government does not have the unbridled discretion to enforce
collection without regard to the clear provision of law." 14
Petitioner specifically points out that applying Memorandum Circular No. 38-68, implementing
Sections 318 and 324 of the old tax code (Republic Act 5203), the BIR's Notices of Levy on the
Marcos properties, were issued beyond the allowed period, and are therefore null and void:
. . . the Notices of Levy on Real Property (Annexes O to NN of Annex C of this
Petition) in satisfaction of said assessments were still issued by respondents well
beyond the period mandated in Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 38-68. These
Notices of Levy were issued only on 22 February 1993 and 20 May 1993 when at
least seventeen (17) months had already lapsed from the last service of tax
assessment on 12 September 1991. As no notices of distraint of personal property
were first issued by respondents, the latter should have complied with Revenue
Memorandum Circular No. 38-68 and issued these Notices of Levy not earlier than
three (3) months nor later than six (6) months from 12 September 1991. In
accordance with the Circular, respondents only had until 12 March 1992 (the last day
of the sixth month) within which to issue these Notices of Levy. The Notices of Levy,
having been issued beyond the period allowed by law, are thus void and of no
effect. 15
We hold otherwise. The Notices of Levy upon real property were issued within the prescriptive period
and in accordance with the provisions of the present Tax Code. The deficiency tax assessment,
having already become final, executory, and demandable, the same can now be collected through
the summary remedy of distraint or levy pursuant to Section 205 of the NIRC.
The applicable provision in regard to the prescriptive period for the assessment and collection of tax
deficiency in this instance is Article 223 of the NIRC, which pertinently provides:
Sec. 223. Exceptions as to a period of limitation of assessment and collection of
taxes. (a) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade tax or of a
failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the
collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time within ten (10)
years after the discovery of the falsity, fraud, or omission:Provided, That, in a fraud
assessment which has become final and executory, the fact of fraud shall be
judicially taken cognizance of in the civil or criminal action for the collection thereof.
xxx xxx xxx
(c) Any internal revenue tax which has been assessed within the period of limitation
above prescribed, may be collected by distraint or levy or by a proceeding in court
within three years following the assessment of the tax.
xxx xxx xxx
The omission to file an estate tax return, and the subsequent failure to contest or appeal the
assessment made by the BIR is fatal to the petitioner's cause, as under the above-cited provision, in

case of failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed at any time within ten years after the
omission, and any tax so assessed may be collected by levy upon real property within three years
following the assessment of the tax. Since the estate tax assessment had become final and
unappealable by the petitioner's default as regards protesting the validity of the said assessment,
there is now no reason why the BIR cannot continue with the collection of the said tax. Any objection
against the assessment should have been pursued following the avenue paved in Section 229 of the
NIRC on protests on assessments of internal revenue taxes.
Petitioner further argues that "the numerous pending court cases questioning the late president's
ownership or interests in several properties (both real and personal) make the total value of his
estate, and the consequent estate tax due, incapable of exact pecuniary determination at this time.
Thus, respondents' assessment of the estate tax and their issuance of the Notices of Levy and sale
are premature and oppressive." He points out the pendency of Sandiganbayan Civil Case Nos.
0001-0034 and 0141, which were filed by the government to question the ownership and interests of
the late President in real and personal properties located within and outside the Philippines.
Petitioner, however, omits to allege whether the properties levied upon by the BIR in the collection of
estate taxes upon the decedent's estate were among those involved in the said cases pending in the
Sandiganbayan. Indeed, the court is at a loss as to how these cases are relevant to the matter at
issue. The mere fact that the decedent has pending cases involving ill-gotten wealth does not affect
the enforcement of tax assessments over the properties indubitably included in his estate.
Petitioner also expresses his reservation as to the propriety of the BIR's total assessment of
P23,292,607,638.00, stating that this amount deviates from the findings of the Department of
Justice's Panel of Prosecutors as per its resolution of 20 September 1991. Allegedly, this is clear
evidence of the uncertainty on the part of the Government as to the total value of the estate of the
late President.
This is, to our mind, the petitioner's last ditch effort to assail the assessment of estate tax which had
already become final and unappealable.
It is not the Department of Justice which is the government agency tasked to determine the amount
of taxes due upon the subject estate, but the Bureau of Internal Revenue, 16 whose determinations
and assessments are presumed correct and made in good faith. 17 The taxpayer has the duty of proving
otherwise. In the absence of proof of any irregularities in the performance of official duties, an
assessment will not be disturbed. Even an assessment based on estimates is prima facie valid and lawful
where it does not appear to have been arrived at arbitrarily or capriciously. The burden of proof is upon
the complaining party to show clearly that the assessment is erroneous. Failure to present proof of error
in the assessment will justify the judicial affirmance of said assessment. 18 In this instance, petitioner has
not pointed out one single provision in the Memorandum of the Special Audit Team which gave rise to the
questioned assessment, which bears a trace of falsity. Indeed, the petitioner's attack on the assessment
bears mainly on the alleged improbable and unconscionable amount of the taxes charged. But mere
rhetoric cannot supply the basis for the charge of impropriety of the assessments made.
Moreover, these objections to the assessments should have been raised, considering the ample
remedies afforded the taxpayer by the Tax Code, with the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Court
of Tax Appeals, as described earlier, and cannot be raised now via Petition for Certiorari, under the
pretext of grave abuse of discretion. The course of action taken by the petitioner reflects his
disregard or even repugnance of the established institutions for governance in the scheme of a wellordered society. The subject tax assessments having become final, executory and enforceable, the
same can no longer be contested by means of a disguised protest. In the main, Certiorari may not
be used as a substitute for a lost appeal or remedy. 19 This judicial policy becomes more pronounced in
view of the absence of sufficient attack against the actuations of government.
On the matter of sufficiency of service of Notices of Assessment to the petitioner, we find the
respondent appellate court's pronouncements sound and resilient to petitioner's attacks.
Anent grounds 3(b) and (B) both alleging/claiming lack of notice We find, after
considering the facts and circumstances, as well as evidences, that there was
sufficient, constructive and/or actual notice of assessments, levy and sale, sent to

herein petitioner Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos as well as to his mother Mrs. Imelda
Marcos.
Even if we are to rule out the notices of assessments personally given to the
caretaker of Mrs. Marcos at the latter's last known address, on August 26, 1991 and
September 12, 1991, as well as the notices of assessment personally given to the
caretaker of petitioner also at his last known address on September 12, 1991 the
subsequent notices given thereafter could no longer be ignored as they were sent at
a time when petitioner was already here in the Philippines, and at a place where said
notices would surely be called to petitioner's attention, and received by responsible
persons of sufficient age and discretion.
Thus, on October 20, 1992, formal assessment notices were served upon Mrs.
Marcos c/o the petitioner, at his office, House of Representatives, Batasan
Pambansa, Q.C. (Annexes "A", "A-1", "A-2", "A-3"; pp. 207-210,
Comment/Memorandum of OSG). Moreover, a notice to taxpayer dated October 8,
1992 inviting Mrs. Marcos to a conference relative to her tax liabilities, was furnished
the counsel of Mrs. Marcos Dean Antonio Coronel (Annex "B", p. 211, ibid).
Thereafter, copies of Notices were also served upon Mrs. Imelda Marcos, the
petitioner and their counsel "De Borja, Medialdea, Ata, Bello, Guevarra and Serapio
Law Office", on April 7, 1993 and June 10, 1993. Despite all of these Notices,
petitioner never lifted a finger to protest the assessments, (upon which the Levy and
sale of properties were based), nor appealed the same to the Court of Tax Appeals.
There being sufficient service of Notices to herein petitioner (and his mother) and it
appearing that petitioner continuously ignored said Notices despite several
opportunities given him to file a protest and to thereafter appeal to the Court of Tax
Appeals, the tax assessments subject of this case, upon which the levy and sale
of properties were based, could no longer be contested (directly or indirectly) via this
instant petition for certiorari. 20
Petitioner argues that all the questioned Notices of Levy, however, must be nullified for having been
issued without validly serving copies thereof to the petitioner. As a mandatory heir of the decedent,
petitioner avers that he has an interest in the subject estate, and notices of levy upon its properties
should have been served upon him.
We do not agree. In the case of notices of levy issued to satisfy the delinquent estate tax, the
delinquent taxpayer is the Estate of the decedent, and not necessarily, and exclusively, the petitioner
as heir of the deceased. In the same vein, in the matter of income tax delinquency of the late
president and his spouse, petitioner is not the taxpayer liable. Thus, it follows that service of notices
of levy in satisfaction of these tax delinquencies upon the petitioner is not required by law, as under
Section 213 of the NIRC, which pertinently states:
xxx xxx xxx
. . . Levy shall be effected by writing upon said certificate a description of the property
upon which levy is made. At the same time, written notice of the levy shall be mailed
to or served upon the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the property is
located and upon the delinquent taxpayer, or if he be absent from the Philippines, to
his agent or the manager of the business in respect to which the liability arose, or if
there be none, to the occupant of the property in question.
xxx xxx xxx
The foregoing notwithstanding, the record shows that notices of warrants of distraint and levy of sale
were furnished the counsel of petitioner on April 7, 1993, and June 10, 1993, and the petitioner
himself on April 12, 1993 at his office at the Batasang Pambansa. 21 We cannot therefore,
countenance petitioner's insistence that he was denied due process. Where there was an opportunity to
raise objections to government action, and such opportunity was disregarded, for no justifiable reason,
the party claiming oppression then becomes the oppressor of the orderly functions of government. He

who comes to court must come with clean hands. Otherwise, he not only taints his name, but ridicules the
very structure of established authority.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the present petition. The Decision of the Court
of Appeals dated November 29, 1994 is hereby AFFIRMED in all respects.
SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

10

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 106611 July 21, 1994

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION and COURT OF TAX
APPEALS, respondents.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.
Palaez, Adriano & Gregorio for private respondent.

REGALADO, J.:
The judicial proceedings over the present controversy commenced with CTA Case No. 4099,
wherein the Court of Tax Appeals ordered herein petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue to
grant a refund to herein private respondent Citytrust Banking Corporation (Citytrust) in the amount of
P13,314,506.14, representing its overpaid income taxes for 1984 and 1985, but denied its claim for
the alleged refundable amount reflected in its 1983 income tax return on the ground of
prescription. 1 That judgment of the tax court was affirmed by respondent Court of Appeals in its judgment
in CA-G.R. SP
No. 26839. 2 The case was then elevated to us in the present petition for review on certiorari wherein the
latter judgment is impugned and sought to be nullified and/or set aside.
It appears that in a letter dated August 26, 1986, herein private respondent corporation filed a claim
for refund with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in the amount of P19,971,745.00 representing
the alleged aggregate of the excess of its carried-over total quarterly payments over the actual
income tax due, plus carried-over withholding tax payments on government securities and rental
income, as computed in its final income tax return for the calendar year ending December 31, 1985. 3
Two days later, or on August 28, 1986, in order to interrupt the running of the prescriptive period,
Citytrust filed a petition with the Court of Tax Appeals, docketed therein as CTA Case No. 4099,
claiming the refund of its income tax overpayments for the years 1983, 1984 and 1985 in the total
amount of P19,971,745.00. 4
In the answer filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, for and in behalf of therein respondent
commissioner, it was asserted that the mere averment that Citytrust incurred a net loss in 1985 does
not ipso facto merit a refund; that the amounts of P6,611,223.00, P1,959,514.00 and P28,238.00
claimed by Citytrust as 1983 income tax overpayment, taxes withheld on proceeds of government
securities investments, as well as on rental income, respectively, are not properly documented; that
assuming arguendo that petitioner is entitled to refund, the right to claim the same has prescribed
with respect to income tax payments prior to August 28, 1984, pursuant to Sections 292 and 295 of
the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, as amended, since the petition was filed only on
August 28, 1986. 5
On February 20, 1991, the case was submitted for decision based solely on the pleadings and
evidence submitted by herein private respondent Citytrust. Herein petitioner could not present any
evidence by reason of the repeated failure of the Tax Credit/Refund Division of the BIR to transmit
the records of the case, as well as the investigation report thereon, to the Solicitor General. 6
However, on June 24, 1991, herein petitioner filed with the tax court a manifestation and motion
praying for the suspension of the proceedings in the said case on the ground that the claim of
Citytrust for tax refund in the amount of P19,971,745.00 was already being processed by the Tax
Credit/Refund Division of the BIR, and that said bureau was only awaiting the submission by

11

Citytrust of the required confirmation receipts which would show whether or not the aforestated
amount was actually paid and remitted to the BIR. 7
Citytrust filed an opposition thereto, contending that since the Court of Tax Appeals already acquired
jurisdiction over the case, it could no longer be divested of the same; and, further, that the
proceedings therein could not be suspended by the mere fact that the claim for refund was being
administratively processed, especially where the case had already been submitted for decision.
It also argued that the BIR had already conducted an audit, citing therefor Exhibits Y, Y-1, Y-2 and Y3 adduced in the case, which clearly showed that there was an overpayment of income taxes and for
which a tax credit or refund was due to Citytrust. The Foregoing exhibits are allegedly conclusive
proof of and an admission by herein petitioner that there had been an overpayment of income
taxes. 8
The tax court denied the motion to suspend proceedings on the ground that the case had already
been submitted for decision since February 20, 1991. 9
Thereafter, said court rendered its decision in the case, the decretal portion of which declares:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, petitioner is entitled to a refund but only for
the overpaid taxes incurred in 1984 and 1985. The refundable amount as shown in
its 1983 income tax return is hereby denied on the ground of prescription.
Respondent is hereby ordered to grant a refund to petitioner Citytrust Banking Corp.
in the amount of P13,314,506.14 representing the overpaid income taxes for 1984
and 1985, recomputed as follows:
1984 Income tax due P 4,715,533.00
Less: 1984 Quarterly payments P 16,214,599.00*
1984 Tax Credits
W/T on int. on gov't. sec. 1,921,245.37*
W/T on rental inc. 26,604.30* 18,162,448.67

Tax Overpayment (13,446,915.67)
Less: FCDU payable 150,252.00

Amount refundable for 1984 P (13,296,663.67)

1985 Income tax due (loss) P 0
Less: W/T on rentals 36,716.47*

Tax Overpayment (36,716.47)*

Less: FCDU payable 18,874.00

Amount Refundable for 1985 P (17,842.47)

* Note:
These credits are smaller than the claimed amount because only the
above figures are well supported by the various exhibits presented
during the hearing.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. 10
The order for refund was based on the following findings of the Court of Tax Appeals: (1) the fact of
withholding has been established by the statements and certificates of withholding taxes
accomplished by herein private respondent's withholding agents, the authenticity of which were
neither disputed nor controverted by herein petitioner; (2) no evidence was presented which could
effectively dispute the correctness of the income tax return filed by herein respondent corporation
and other material facts stated therein; (3) no deficiency assessment was issued by herein
petitioner; and (4) there was an audit report submitted by the BIR Assessment Branch,
recommending the refund of overpaid taxes for the years concerned (Exhibits Y to Y-3), which enjoys
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. 11

12

A motion for the reconsideration of said decision was initially filed by the Solicitor General on the
sole ground that the statements and certificates of taxes allegedly withheld are not conclusive
evidence of actual payment and remittance of the taxes withheld to the BIR. 12 A supplemental motion
for reconsideration was thereafter filed, wherein it was contended for the first time that herein private
respondent had outstanding unpaid deficiency income taxes. Petitioner alleged that through an inter-office
memorandum of the Tax Credit/Refund Division, dated August 8, 1991, he came to know only lately that
Citytrust had outstanding tax liabilities for 1984 in the amount of P56,588,740.91 representing deficiency
income and business taxes covered by Demand/Assessment Notice No. FAS-1-84-003291-003296. 13
Oppositions to both the basic and supplemental motions for reconsideration were filed by private
respondent Citytrust. 14 Thereafter, the Court of Tax Appeals issued a resolution denying both motions for
the reason that Section 52 (b) of the Tax Code, as implemented by Revenue Regulation
6-85, only requires that the claim for tax credit or refund must show that the income received was
declared as part of the gross income, and that the fact of withholding was duly established. Moreover,
with regard to the argument raised in the supplemental motion for reconsideration anent the deficiency tax
assessment against herein petitioner, the tax court ruled that since that matter was not raised in the
pleadings, the same cannot be considered, invoking therefor the salutary purpose of the omnibus motion
rule which is to obviate multiplicity of motions and to discourage dilatory pleadings. 15
As indicated at the outset, a petition for review was filed by herein petitioner with respondent Court
of Appeals which in due course promulgated its decision affirming the judgment of the Court of Tax
Appeals. Petitioner eventually elevated the case to this Court, maintaining that said respondent court
erred in affirming the grant of the claim for refund of Citytrust, considering that, firstly, said private
respondent failed to prove and substantiate its claim for such refund; and, secondly, the bureau's
findings of deficiency income and business tax liabilities against private respondent for the year 1984
bars such payment. 16
After a careful review of the records, we find that under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the
ends of substantial justice and public interest would be better subserved by the remand of this case
to the Court of Tax Appeals for further proceedings.
It is the sense of this Court that the BIR, represented herein by petitioner Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, was denied its day in court by reason of the mistakes and/or negligence of its officials and
employees. It can readily be gleaned from the records that when it was herein petitioner's turn to
present evidence, several postponements were sought by its counsel, the Solicitor General, due to
the unavailability of the necessary records which were not transmitted by the Refund Audit Division
of the BIR to said counsel, as well as the investigation report made by the Banks/Financing and
Insurance Division of the said bureau/ despite repeated requests. 17 It was under such a predicament
and in deference to the tax court that ultimately, said records being still unavailable, herein petitioner's
counsel was constrained to submit the case for decision on February 20, 1991 without presenting any
evidence.
For that matter, the BIR officials and/or employees concerned also failed to heed the order of the
Court of Tax Appeals to remand the records to it pursuant to Section 2, Rule 7 of the Rules of the
Court of Tax Appeals which provides that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the
Commissioner of Customs shall certify and forward to the Court of Tax Appeals, within ten days after
filing his answer, all the records of the case in his possession, with the pages duly numbered, and if
the records are in separate folders, then the folders shall also be numbered.
The aforestated impass came about due to the fact that, despite the filing of the aforementioned
initiatory petition in CTA Case No. 4099 with the Court of Tax Appeals, the Tax Refund Division of the
BIR still continued to act administratively on the claim for refund previously filed therein, instead of
forwarding the records of the case to the Court of Tax Appeals as ordered. 18
It is a long and firmly settled rule of law that the Government is not bound by the errors committed by
its agents.19 In the performance of its governmental functions, the State cannot be estopped by the
neglect of its agent and officers. Although the Government may generally be estopped through the
affirmative acts of public officers acting within their authority, their neglect or omission of public duties as
exemplified in this case will not and should not produce that effect.

13

Nowhere is the aforestated rule more true than in the field of taxation. 20 It is axiomatic that the
Government cannot and must not be estopped particularly in matters involving taxes. Taxes are the
lifeblood of the nation through which the government agencies continue to operate and with which the
State effects its functions for the welfare of its constituents. 21The errors of certain administrative officers
should never be allowed to jeopardize the Government's financial position, 22especially in the case at bar
where the amount involves millions of pesos the collection whereof, if justified, stands to be prejudiced
just because of bureaucratic lethargy.
Further, it is also worth nothing that the Court of Tax Appeals erred in denying petitioner's
supplemental motion for reconsideration alleging bringing to said court's attention the existence of
the deficiency income and business tax assessment against Citytrust. The fact of such deficiency
assessment is intimately related to and inextricably intertwined with the right of respondent bank to
claim for a tax refund for the same year. To award such refund despite the existence of that
deficiency assessment is an absurdity and a polarity in conceptual effects. Herein private respondent
cannot be entitled to refund and at the same time be liable for a tax deficiency assessment for the
same year.
The grant of a refund is founded on the assumption that the tax return is valid, that is, the facts
stated therein are true and correct. The deficiency assessment, although not yet final, created a
doubt as to and constitutes a challenge against the truth and accuracy of the facts stated in said
return which, by itself and without unquestionable evidence, cannot be the basis for the grant of the
refund.
Section 82, Chapter IX of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, which was the applicable law
when the claim of Citytrust was filed, provides that "(w)hen an assessment is made in case of any
list, statement, or return, which in the opinion of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was false or
fraudulent or contained any understatement or undervaluation, no tax collected under such
assessment shall be recovered by any suits unless it is proved that the said list, statement, or return
was not false nor fraudulent and did not contain any understatement or undervaluation; but this
provision shall not apply to statements or returns made or to be made in good faith regarding annual
depreciation of oil or gas wells and mines."
Moreover, to grant the refund without determination of the proper assessment and the tax due would
inevitably result in multiplicity of proceedings or suits. If the deficiency assessment should
subsequently be upheld, the Government will be forced to institute anew a proceeding for the
recovery of erroneously refunded taxes which recourse must be filed within the prescriptive period of
ten years after discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission in the false or fraudulent return
involved. 23 This would necessarily require and entail additional efforts and expenses on the part of the
Government, impose a burden on and a drain of government funds, and impede or delay the collection of
much-needed revenue for governmental operations.
Thus, to avoid multiplicity of suits and unnecessary difficulties or expenses, it is both logically
necessary and legally appropriate that the issue of the deficiency tax assessment against Citytrust
be resolved jointly with its claim for tax refund, to determine once and for all in a single proceeding
the true and correct amount of tax due or refundable.
In fact, as the Court of Tax Appeals itself has heretofore conceded, 24 it would be only just and fair that
the taxpayer and the Government alike be given equal opportunities to avail of remedies under the law to
defeat each other's claim and to determine all matters of dispute between them in one single case. It is
important to note that in determining whether or not petitioner is entitled to the refund of the amount paid,
it would necessary to determine how much the Government is entitled to collect as taxes. This would
necessarily include the determination of the correct liability of the taxpayer and, certainly, a determination
of this case would constitute res judicata on both parties as to all the matters subject thereof or
necessarily involved therein.
The Court cannot end this adjudication without observing that what caused the Government to lose
its case in the tax court may hopefully be ascribed merely to the ennui or ineptitude of officialdom,
and not to syndicated intent or corruption. The evidential cul-de-sac in which the Solicitor General
found himself once again gives substance to the public perception and suspicion that it is another
proverbial tip in the iceberg of venality in a government bureau which is pejoratively rated over the

14

years. What is so distressing, aside from the financial losses to the Government, is the erosion of
trust in a vital institution wherein the reputations of so many honest and dedicated workers are
besmirched by the acts or omissions of a few. Hence, the liberal view we have here taken pro hac
vice, which may give some degree of assurance that this Court will unhesitatingly react to any bane
in the government service, with a replication of such response being likewise expected by the people
from the executive authorities.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 26839 is hereby
SET ASIDE and the case at bar is REMANDED to the Court of Tax Appeals for further proceedings
and appropriate action, more particularly, the reception of evidence for petitioner and the
corresponding disposition of CTA Case No. 4099 not otherwise inconsistent with our adjudgment
herein.
SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-28896 February 17, 1988
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner,
vs.
ALGUE, INC., and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.
CRUZ, J.:
Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance
On the other hand, such collection should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will
negate the very reason for government itself. It is therefore necessary to reconcile the apparently
conflicting interests of the authorities and the taxpayers so that the real purpose of taxation, which is
the promotion of the common good, may be achieved.
The main issue in this case is whether or not the Collector of Internal Revenue correctly disallowed
the P75,000.00 deduction claimed by private respondent Algue as legitimate business expenses in
its income tax returns. The corollary issue is whether or not the appeal of the private respondent
from the decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue was made on time and in accordance with law.
We deal first with the procedural question.
The record shows that on January 14, 1965, the private respondent, a domestic corporation
engaged in engineering, construction and other allied activities, received a letter from the petitioner
assessing it in the total amount of P83,183.85 as delinquency income taxes for the years 1958 and
1959. 1 On January 18, 1965, Algue flied a letter of protest or request for reconsideration, which letter was
stamp received on the same day in the office of the petitioner. 2 On March 12, 1965, a warrant of distraint
and levy was presented to the private respondent, through its counsel, Atty. Alberto Guevara, Jr., who
refused to receive it on the ground of the pending protest. 3 A search of the protest in the dockets of the
case proved fruitless. Atty. Guevara produced his file copy and gave a photostat to BIR agent Ramon
Reyes, who deferred service of the warrant. 4 On April 7, 1965, Atty. Guevara was finally informed that the
BIR was not taking any action on the protest and it was only then that he accepted the warrant of distraint

15

and levy earlier sought to be served. 5 Sixteen days later, on April 23, 1965, Algue filed a petition for
review of the decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with the Court of Tax Appeals. 6

The above chronology shows that the petition was filed seasonably. According to Rep. Act No. 1125,
the appeal may be made within thirty days after receipt of the decision or ruling challenged. 7 It is true
that as a rule the warrant of distraint and levy is "proof of the finality of the assessment" 8 and renders
hopeless a request for reconsideration," 9being "tantamount to an outright denial thereof and makes the
said request deemed rejected." 10 But there is a special circumstance in the case at bar that prevents
application of this accepted doctrine.
The proven fact is that four days after the private respondent received the petitioner's notice of
assessment, it filed its letter of protest. This was apparently not taken into account before the
warrant of distraint and levy was issued; indeed, such protest could not be located in the office of the
petitioner. It was only after Atty. Guevara gave the BIR a copy of the protest that it was, if at all,
considered by the tax authorities. During the intervening period, the warrant was premature and
could therefore not be served.
As the Court of Tax Appeals correctly noted," 11 the protest filed by private respondent was not pro
forma and was based on strong legal considerations. It thus had the effect of suspending on January 18,
1965, when it was filed, the reglementary period which started on the date the assessment was received,
viz., January 14, 1965. The period started running again only on April 7, 1965, when the private
respondent was definitely informed of the implied rejection of the said protest and the warrant was finally
served on it. Hence, when the appeal was filed on April 23, 1965, only 20 days of the reglementary period
had been consumed.
Now for the substantive question.
The petitioner contends that the claimed deduction of P75,000.00 was properly disallowed because
it was not an ordinary reasonable or necessary business expense. The Court of Tax Appeals had
seen it differently. Agreeing with Algue, it held that the said amount had been legitimately paid by the
private respondent for actual services rendered. The payment was in the form of promotional fees.
These were collected by the Payees for their work in the creation of the Vegetable Oil Investment
Corporation of the Philippines and its subsequent purchase of the properties of the Philippine Sugar
Estate Development Company.
Parenthetically, it may be observed that the petitioner had Originally claimed these promotional fees
to be personal holding company income 12 but later conformed to the decision of the respondent court
rejecting this assertion.13 In fact, as the said court found, the amount was earned through the joint efforts
of the persons among whom it was distributed It has been established that the Philippine Sugar Estate
Development Company had earlier appointed Algue as its agent, authorizing it to sell its land, factories
and oil manufacturing process. Pursuant to such authority, Alberto Guevara, Jr., Eduardo Guevara, Isabel
Guevara, Edith, O'Farell, and Pablo Sanchez, worked for the formation of the Vegetable Oil Investment
Corporation, inducing other persons to invest in it. 14 Ultimately, after its incorporation largely through the
promotion of the said persons, this new corporation purchased the PSEDC properties. 15 For this sale,
Algue received as agent a commission of P126,000.00, and it was from this commission that the
P75,000.00 promotional fees were paid to the aforenamed individuals. 16
There is no dispute that the payees duly reported their respective shares of the fees in their income
tax returns and paid the corresponding taxes thereon. 17 The Court of Tax Appeals also found, after
examining the evidence, that no distribution of dividends was involved. 18
The petitioner claims that these payments are fictitious because most of the payees are members of
the same family in control of Algue. It is argued that no indication was made as to how such
payments were made, whether by check or in cash, and there is not enough substantiation of such
payments. In short, the petitioner suggests a tax dodge, an attempt to evade a legitimate
assessment by involving an imaginary deduction.
We find that these suspicions were adequately met by the private respondent when its President,
Alberto Guevara, and the accountant, Cecilia V. de Jesus, testified that the payments were not made
in one lump sum but periodically and in different amounts as each payee's need arose. 19 It should be
remembered that this was a family corporation where strict business procedures were not applied and

16

immediate issuance of receipts was not required. Even so, at the end of the year, when the books were to
be closed, each payee made an accounting of all of the fees received by him or her, to make up the total
of P75,000.00. 20 Admittedly, everything seemed to be informal. This arrangement was understandable,
however, in view of the close relationship among the persons in the family corporation.

We agree with the respondent court that the amount of the promotional fees was not excessive. The
total commission paid by the Philippine Sugar Estate Development Co. to the private respondent
was P125,000.00. 21After deducting the said fees, Algue still had a balance of P50,000.00 as clear profit
from the transaction. The amount of P75,000.00 was 60% of the total commission. This was a reasonable
proportion, considering that it was the payees who did practically everything, from the formation of the
Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation to the actual purchase by it of the Sugar Estate properties. This
finding of the respondent court is in accord with the following provision of the Tax Code:
SEC. 30. Deductions from gross income.--In computing net income there shall be
allowed as deductions
(a) Expenses:
(1) In general.--All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the
taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including a reasonable allowance
for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered; ... 22
and Revenue Regulations No. 2, Section 70 (1), reading as follows:
SEC. 70. Compensation for personal services.--Among the ordinary and necessary
expenses paid or incurred in carrying on any trade or business may be included a
reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services
actually rendered. The test of deductibility in the case of compensation payments is
whether they are reasonable and are, in fact, payments purely for service. This test
and deductibility in the case of compensation payments is whether they are
reasonable and are, in fact, payments purely for service. This test and its practical
application may be further stated and illustrated as follows:
Any amount paid in the form of compensation, but not in fact as the purchase price of
services, is not deductible. (a) An ostensible salary paid by a corporation may be a
distribution of a dividend on stock. This is likely to occur in the case of a corporation
having few stockholders, Practically all of whom draw salaries. If in such a case the
salaries are in excess of those ordinarily paid for similar services, and the excessive
payment correspond or bear a close relationship to the stockholdings of the officers
of employees, it would seem likely that the salaries are not paid wholly for services
rendered, but the excessive payments are a distribution of earnings upon the
stock. . . . (Promulgated Feb. 11, 1931, 30 O.G. No. 18, 325.)
It is worth noting at this point that most of the payees were not in the regular employ of Algue nor
were they its controlling stockholders. 23
The Solicitor General is correct when he says that the burden is on the taxpayer to prove the validity
of the claimed deduction. In the present case, however, we find that the onus has been discharged
satisfactorily. The private respondent has proved that the payment of the fees was necessary and
reasonable in the light of the efforts exerted by the payees in inducing investors and prominent
businessmen to venture in an experimental enterprise and involve themselves in a new business
requiring millions of pesos. This was no mean feat and should be, as it was, sufficiently
recompensed.
It is said that taxes are what we pay for civilization society. Without taxes, the government would be
paralyzed for lack of the motive power to activate and operate it. Hence, despite the natural
reluctance to surrender part of one's hard earned income to the taxing authorities, every person who
is able to must contribute his share in the running of the government. The government for its part, is
expected to respond in the form of tangible and intangible benefits intended to improve the lives of
the people and enhance their moral and material values. This symbiotic relationship is the rationale

17

of taxation and should dispel the erroneous notion that it is an arbitrary method of exaction by those
in the seat of power.
But even as we concede the inevitability and indispensability of taxation, it is a requirement in all
democratic regimes that it be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the prescribed
procedure. If it is not, then the taxpayer has a right to complain and the courts will then come to his
succor. For all the awesome power of the tax collector, he may still be stopped in his tracks if the
taxpayer can demonstrate, as it has here, that the law has not been observed.
We hold that the appeal of the private respondent from the decision of the petitioner was filed on
time with the respondent court in accordance with Rep. Act No. 1125. And we also find that the
claimed deduction by the private respondent was permitted under the Internal Revenue Code and
should therefore not have been disallowed by the petitioner.
ACCORDINGLY, the appealed decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto, without
costs.
SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-75697 June 18, 1987
VALENTIN TIO doing business under the name and style of OMI ENTERPRISES, petitioner,
vs.
VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD, MINISTER OF FINANCE, METRO MANILA COMMISSION,
CITY MAYOR and CITY TREASURER OF MANILA, respondents.
Nelson Y. Ng for petitioner.
The City Legal Officer for respondents City Mayor and City Treasurer.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

18

This petition was filed on September 1, 1986 by petitioner on his own behalf and purportedly on
behalf of other videogram operators adversely affected. It assails the constitutionality of Presidential
Decree No. 1987 entitled "An Act Creating the Videogram Regulatory Board" with broad powers to
regulate and supervise the videogram industry (hereinafter briefly referred to as the BOARD). The
Decree was promulgated on October 5, 1985 and took effect on April 10, 1986, fifteen (15) days
after completion of its publication in the Official Gazette.
On November 5, 1985, a month after the promulgation of the abovementioned decree, Presidential
Decree No. 1994 amended the National Internal Revenue Code providing, inter alia:
SEC. 134. Video Tapes. There shall be collected on each processed video-tape
cassette, ready for playback, regardless of length, an annual tax of five pesos;
Provided, That locally manufactured or imported blank video tapes shall be subject to
sales tax.
On October 23, 1986, the Greater Manila Theaters Association, Integrated Movie Producers,
Importers and Distributors Association of the Philippines, and Philippine Motion Pictures Producers
Association, hereinafter collectively referred to as the Intervenors, were permitted by the Court to
intervene in the case, over petitioner's opposition, upon the allegations that intervention was
necessary for the complete protection of their rights and that their "survival and very existence is
threatened by the unregulated proliferation of film piracy." The Intervenors were thereafter allowed to
file their Comment in Intervention.
The rationale behind the enactment of the DECREE, is set out in its preambular clauses as follows:
1. WHEREAS, the proliferation and unregulated circulation of videograms including,
among others, videotapes, discs, cassettes or any technical improvement or variation
thereof, have greatly prejudiced the operations of moviehouses and theaters, and
have caused a sharp decline in theatrical attendance by at least forty percent (40%)
and a tremendous drop in the collection of sales, contractor's specific, amusement
and other taxes, thereby resulting in substantial losses estimated at P450 Million
annually in government revenues;
2. WHEREAS, videogram(s) establishments collectively earn around P600 Million
per annum from rentals, sales and disposition of videograms, and such earnings
have not been subjected to tax, thereby depriving the Government of approximately
P180 Million in taxes each year;
3. WHEREAS, the unregulated activities of videogram establishments have also
affected the viability of the movie industry, particularly the more than 1,200 movie
houses and theaters throughout the country, and occasioned industry-wide
displacement and unemployment due to the shutdown of numerous moviehouses
and theaters;
4. "WHEREAS, in order to ensure national economic recovery, it is imperative for the
Government to create an environment conducive to growth and development of all
business industries, including the movie industry which has an accumulated
investment of about P3 Billion;
5. WHEREAS, proper taxation of the activities of videogram establishments will not
only alleviate the dire financial condition of the movie industry upon which more than
75,000 families and 500,000 workers depend for their livelihood, but also provide an
additional source of revenue for the Government, and at the same time rationalize
the heretofore uncontrolled distribution of videograms;
6. WHEREAS, the rampant and unregulated showing of obscene videogram features
constitutes a clear and present danger to the moral and spiritual well-being of the
youth, and impairs the mandate of the Constitution for the State to support the
rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character and
promote their physical, intellectual, and social well-being;

19

7. WHEREAS, civic-minded citizens and groups have called for remedial measures
to curb these blatant malpractices which have flaunted our censorship and copyright
laws;
8. WHEREAS, in the face of these grave emergencies corroding the moral values of
the people and betraying the national economic recovery program, bold emergency
measures must be adopted with dispatch; ... (Numbering of paragraphs supplied).
Petitioner's attack on the constitutionality of the DECREE rests on the following grounds:
1. Section 10 thereof, which imposes a tax of 30% on the gross receipts payable to
the local government is a RIDER and the same is not germane to the subject matter
thereof;
2. The tax imposed is harsh, confiscatory, oppressive and/or in unlawful restraint of
trade in violation of the due process clause of the Constitution;
3. There is no factual nor legal basis for the exercise by the President of the vast
powers conferred upon him by Amendment No. 6;
4. There is undue delegation of power and authority;
5. The Decree is an ex-post facto law; and
6. There is over regulation of the video industry as if it were a nuisance, which it is
not.
We shall consider the foregoing objections in seriatim.
1. The Constitutional requirement that "every bill shall embrace only one subject which shall be
expressed in the title thereof" 1 is sufficiently complied with if the title be comprehensive enough to include the general purpose
which a statute seeks to achieve. It is not necessary that the title express each and every end that the statute wishes to accomplish. The
requirement is satisfied if all the parts of the statute are related, and are germane to the subject matter expressed in the title, or as long as

An act having a single general subject, indicated in

the title, may contain any number of provisions, no matter how diverse they may be, so long as they are
not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject, and may be considered in furtherance of such
subject by providing for the method and means of carrying out the general object." 3 The rule also is that
the constitutional requirement as to the title of a bill should not be so narrowly construed as to cripple or
impede the power of legislation. 4 It should be given practical rather than technical construction. 5
they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject and title. 2

Tested by the foregoing criteria, petitioner's contention that the tax provision of the DECREE is a
rider is without merit. That section reads, inter alia:
Section 10. Tax on Sale, Lease or Disposition of Videograms. Notwithstanding any
provision of law to the contrary, the province shall collect a tax of thirty percent (30%)
of the purchase price or rental rate, as the case may be, for every sale, lease or
disposition of a videogram containing a reproduction of any motion picture or
audiovisual program. Fifty percent (50%) of the proceeds of the tax collected shall
accrue to the province, and the other fifty percent (50%) shall acrrue to the
municipality where the tax is collected; PROVIDED, That in Metropolitan Manila, the
tax shall be shared equally by the City/Municipality and the Metropolitan Manila
Commission.
xxx xxx xxx
The foregoing provision is allied and germane to, and is reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of, the general object of the DECREE, which is the regulation of the video industry
through the Videogram Regulatory Board as expressed in its title. The tax provision is not
inconsistent with, nor foreign to that general subject and title. As a tool for regulation 6 it is simply one
of the regulatory and control mechanisms scattered throughout the DECREE. The express purpose of the
DECREE to include taxation of the video industry in order to regulate and rationalize the heretofore

20

uncontrolled distribution of videograms is evident from Preambles 2 and 5, supra. Those preambles
explain the motives of the lawmaker in presenting the measure. The title of the DECREE, which is the
creation of the Videogram Regulatory Board, is comprehensive enough to include the purposes
expressed in its Preamble and reasonably covers all its provisions. It is unnecessary to express all those
objectives in the title or that the latter be an index to the body of the DECREE. 7

2. Petitioner also submits that the thirty percent (30%) tax imposed is harsh and oppressive,
confiscatory, and in restraint of trade. However, it is beyond serious question that a tax does not
cease to be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or even definitely deters the activities
taxed. 8 The power to impose taxes is one so unlimited in force and so searching in extent, that the courts
scarcely venture to declare that it is subject to any restrictions whatever, except such as rest in the
discretion of the authority which exercises it. 9 In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents.
This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation. 10
The tax imposed by the DECREE is not only a regulatory but also a revenue measure prompted by
the realization that earnings of videogram establishments of around P600 million per annum have
not been subjected to tax, thereby depriving the Government of an additional source of revenue. It is
an end-user tax, imposed on retailers for every videogram they make available for public viewing. It
is similar to the 30% amusement tax imposed or borne by the movie industry which the theaterowners pay to the government, but which is passed on to the entire cost of the admission ticket, thus
shifting the tax burden on the buying or the viewing public. It is a tax that is imposed uniformly on all
videogram operators.
The levy of the 30% tax is for a public purpose. It was imposed primarily to answer the need for
regulating the video industry, particularly because of the rampant film piracy, the flagrant violation of
intellectual property rights, and the proliferation of pornographic video tapes. And while it was also
an objective of the DECREE to protect the movie industry, the tax remains a valid imposition.
The public purpose of a tax may legally exist even if the motive which impelled the
legislature to impose the tax was to favor one industry over another. 11
It is inherent in the power to tax that a state be free to select the subjects of taxation,
and it has been repeatedly held that "inequities which result from a singling out of
one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional
limitation". 12 Taxation has been made the implement of the state's police power. 13
At bottom, the rate of tax is a matter better addressed to the taxing legislature.
3. Petitioner argues that there was no legal nor factual basis for the promulgation of the DECREE by
the former President under Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 Constitution providing that "whenever in
the judgment of the President ... , there exists a grave emergency or a threat or imminence thereof,
or whenever the interim Batasang Pambansa or the regular National Assembly fails or is unable to
act adequately on any matter for any reason that in his judgment requires immediate action, he may,
in order to meet the exigency, issue the necessary decrees, orders, or letters of instructions, which
shall form part of the law of the land."
In refutation, the Intervenors and the Solicitor General's Office aver that the 8th "whereas" clause
sufficiently summarizes the justification in that grave emergencies corroding the moral values of the
people and betraying the national economic recovery program necessitated bold emergency
measures to be adopted with dispatch. Whatever the reasons "in the judgment" of the then
President, considering that the issue of the validity of the exercise of legislative power under the said
Amendment still pends resolution in several other cases, we reserve resolution of the question
raised at the proper time.
4. Neither can it be successfully argued that the DECREE contains an undue delegation of
legislative power. The grant in Section 11 of the DECREE of authority to the BOARD to "solicit the
direct assistance of other agencies and units of the government and deputize, for a fixed and limited
period, the heads or personnel of such agencies and units to perform enforcement functions for the
Board" is not a delegation of the power to legislate but merely a conferment of authority or discretion
as to its execution, enforcement, and implementation. "The true distinction is between the delegation

21

of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and
conferring authority or discretion as to its execution to be exercised under and in pursuance of the
law. The first cannot be done; to the latter, no valid objection can be made." 14 Besides, in the very language
of the decree, the authority of the BOARD to solicit such assistance is for a "fixed and limited period" with the deputized agencies concerned
being "subject to the direction and control of the BOARD." That the grant of such authority might be the source of graft and corruption would
not stigmatize the DECREE as unconstitutional. Should the eventuality occur, the aggrieved parties will not be without adequate remedy in
law.

5. The DECREE is not violative of the ex post facto principle. An ex post facto law is, among other
categories, one which "alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or
different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense." It is
petitioner's position that Section 15 of the DECREE in providing that:
All videogram establishments in the Philippines are hereby given a period of forty-five
(45) days after the effectivity of this Decree within which to register with and secure a
permit from the BOARD to engage in the videogram business and to register with the
BOARD all their inventories of videograms, including videotapes, discs, cassettes or
other technical improvements or variations thereof, before they could be sold, leased,
or otherwise disposed of. Thereafter any videogram found in the possession of any
person engaged in the videogram business without the required proof of registration
by the BOARD, shall be prima facie evidence of violation of the Decree, whether the
possession of such videogram be for private showing and/or public exhibition.
raises immediately a prima facie evidence of violation of the DECREE when the required proof of
registration of any videogram cannot be presented and thus partakes of the nature of an ex post
facto law.
The argument is untenable. As this Court held in the recent case of Vallarta vs. Court of Appeals, et
al. 15
... it is now well settled that "there is no constitutional objection to the passage of a
law providing that the presumption of innocence may be overcome by a contrary
presumption founded upon the experience of human conduct, and enacting what
evidence shall be sufficient to overcome such presumption of innocence" (People vs.
Mingoa 92 Phil. 856 [1953] at 858-59, citing 1 COOLEY, A TREATISE ON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, 639-641). And the "legislature may enact that
when certain facts have been proved that they shall be prima facie evidence of the
existence of the guilt of the accused and shift the burden of proof provided there be a
rational connection between the facts proved and the ultimate facts presumed so that
the inference of the one from proof of the others is not unreasonable and arbitrary
because of lack of connection between the two in common experience". 16
Applied to the challenged provision, there is no question that there is a rational connection between
the fact proved, which is non-registration, and the ultimate fact presumed which is violation of the
DECREE, besides the fact that the prima facie presumption of violation of the DECREE attaches
only after a forty-five-day period counted from its effectivity and is, therefore, neither retrospective in
character.
6. We do not share petitioner's fears that the video industry is being over-regulated and being eased
out of existence as if it were a nuisance. Being a relatively new industry, the need for its regulation
was apparent. While the underlying objective of the DECREE is to protect the moribund movie
industry, there is no question that public welfare is at bottom of its enactment, considering "the unfair
competition posed by rampant film piracy; the erosion of the moral fiber of the viewing public brought
about by the availability of unclassified and unreviewed video tapes containing pornographic films
and films with brutally violent sequences; and losses in government revenues due to the drop in
theatrical attendance, not to mention the fact that the activities of video establishments are virtually
untaxed since mere payment of Mayor's permit and municipal license fees are required to engage in
business. 17

22

The enactment of the Decree since April 10, 1986 has not brought about the "demise" of the video
industry. On the contrary, video establishments are seen to have proliferated in many places
notwithstanding the 30% tax imposed.
In the last analysis, what petitioner basically questions is the necessity, wisdom and expediency of
the DECREE. These considerations, however, are primarily and exclusively a matter of legislative
concern.
Only congressional power or competence, not the wisdom of the action taken, may
be the basis for declaring a statute invalid. This is as it ought to be. The principle of
separation of powers has in the main wisely allocated the respective authority of
each department and confined its jurisdiction to such a sphere. There would then be
intrusion not allowable under the Constitution if on a matter left to the discretion of a
coordinate branch, the judiciary would substitute its own. If there be adherence to the
rule of law, as there ought to be, the last offender should be courts of justice, to
which rightly litigants submit their controversy precisely to maintain unimpaired the
supremacy of legal norms and prescriptions. The attack on the validity of the
challenged provision likewise insofar as there may be objections, even if valid and
cogent on its wisdom cannot be sustained. 18
In fine, petitioner has not overcome the presumption of validity which attaches to a challenged
statute. We find no clear violation of the Constitution which would justify us in pronouncing
Presidential Decree No. 1987 as unconstitutional and void.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby dismissed.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.

23

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-7859

December 22, 1955

WALTER LUTZ, as Judicial Administrator of the Intestate Estate of the deceased Antonio
Jayme Ledesma, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
J. ANTONIO ARANETA, as the Collector of Internal Revenue, defendant-appellee.
Ernesto J. Gonzaga for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla, First Assistant Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres
and Solicitor Felicisimo R. Rosete for appellee.

REYES, J.B L., J.:

This case was initiated in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental to test the legality of the
taxes imposed by Commonwealth Act No. 567, otherwise known as the Sugar Adjustment Act.
Promulgated in 1940, the law in question opens (section 1) with a declaration of emergency, due to
the threat to our industry by the imminent imposition of export taxes upon sugar as provided in the
Tydings-McDuffe Act, and the "eventual loss of its preferential position in the United States market";
wherefore, the national policy was expressed "to obtain a readjustment of the benefits derived from
the sugar industry by the component elements thereof" and "to stabilize the sugar industry so as to
prepare it for the eventuality of the loss of its preferential position in the United States market and
the imposition of the export taxes."
In section 2, Commonwealth Act 567 provides for an increase of the existing tax on the manufacture
of sugar, on a graduated basis, on each picul of sugar manufactured; while section 3 levies on
owners or persons in control of lands devoted to the cultivation of sugar cane and ceded to others
for a consideration, on lease or otherwise
a tax equivalent to the difference between the money value of the rental or consideration
collected and the amount representing 12 per centum of the assessed value of such land.
According to section 6 of the law
SEC. 6. All collections made under this Act shall accrue to a special fund in the Philippine
Treasury, to be known as the 'Sugar Adjustment and Stabilization Fund,' and shall be paid
out only for any or all of the following purposes or to attain any or all of the following
objectives, as may be provided by law.
First, to place the sugar industry in a position to maintain itself, despite the gradual loss of
the preferntial position of the Philippine sugar in the United States market, and ultimately to
insure its continued existence notwithstanding the loss of that market and the consequent
necessity of meeting competition in the free markets of the world;
Second, to readjust the benefits derived from the sugar industry by all of the component
elements thereof the mill, the landowner, the planter of the sugar cane, and the laborers in
the factory and in the field so that all might continue profitably to engage
therein;lawphi1.net

24

Third, to limit the production of sugar to areas more economically suited to the production
thereof; and
Fourth, to afford labor employed in the industry a living wage and to improve their living and
working conditions: Provided, That the President of the Philippines may, until the adjourment
of the next regular session of the National Assembly, make the necessary disbursements
from the fund herein created (1) for the establishment and operation of sugar experiment
station or stations and the undertaking of researchers (a) to increase the recoveries of the
centrifugal sugar factories with the view of reducing manufacturing costs, (b) to produce and
propagate higher yielding varieties of sugar cane more adaptable to different district
conditions in the Philippines, (c) to lower the costs of raising sugar cane, (d) to improve the
buying quality of denatured alcohol from molasses for motor fuel, (e) to determine the
possibility of utilizing the other by-products of the industry, (f) to determine what crop or crops
are suitable for rotation and for the utilization of excess cane lands, and (g) on other
problems the solution of which would help rehabilitate and stabilize the industry, and (2) for
the improvement of living and working conditions in sugar mills and sugar plantations,
authorizing him to organize the necessary agency or agencies to take charge of the
expenditure and allocation of said funds to carry out the purpose hereinbefore enumerated,
and, likewise, authorizing the disbursement from the fund herein created of the necessary
amount or amounts needed for salaries, wages, travelling expenses, equipment, and other
sundry expenses of said agency or agencies.
Plaintiff, Walter Lutz, in his capacity as Judicial Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Antonio
Jayme Ledesma, seeks to recover from the Collector of Internal Revenue the sum of P14,666.40
paid by the estate as taxes, under section 3 of the Act, for the crop years 1948-1949 and 1949-1950;
alleging that such tax is unconstitutional and void, being levied for the aid and support of the sugar
industry exclusively, which in plaintiff's opinion is not a public purpose for which a tax may be
constitutioally levied. The action having been dismissed by the Court of First Instance, the plaintifs
appealed the case directly to this Court (Judiciary Act, section 17).
The basic defect in the plaintiff's position is his assumption that the tax provided for in
Commonwealth Act No. 567 is a pure exercise of the taxing power. Analysis of the Act, and
particularly of section 6 (heretofore quoted in full), will show that the tax is levied with a regulatory
purpose, to provide means for the rehabilitation and stabilization of the threatened sugar industry. In
other words, the act is primarily an exercise of the police power.
This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that sugar production is one of the great industries of
our nation, sugar occupying a leading position among its export products; that it gives employment
to thousands of laborers in fields and factories; that it is a great source of the state's wealth, is one of
the important sources of foreign exchange needed by our government, and is thus pivotal in the
plans of a regime committed to a policy of currency stability. Its promotion, protection and
advancement, therefore redounds greatly to the general welfare. Hence it was competent for the
legislature to find that the general welfare demanded that the sugar industry should be stabilized in
turn; and in the wide field of its police power, the lawmaking body could provide that the distribution
of benefits therefrom be readjusted among its components to enable it to resist the added strain of
the increase in taxes that it had to sustain (Sligh vs. Kirkwood, 237 U. S. 52, 59 L. Ed. 835; Johnson
vs. State ex rel. Marey, 99 Fla. 1311, 128 So. 853; Maxcy Inc. vs. Mayo, 103 Fla. 552, 139 So. 121).
As stated in Johnson vs. State ex rel. Marey, with reference to the citrus industry in Florida
The protection of a large industry constituting one of the great sources of the state's wealth
and therefore directly or indirectly affecting the welfare of so great a portion of the population
of the State is affected to such an extent by public interests as to be within the police power
of the sovereign. (128 Sp. 857).
Once it is conceded, as it must, that the protection and promotion of the sugar industry is a matter of
public concern, it follows that the Legislature may determine within reasonable bounds what is
necessary for its protection and expedient for its promotion. Here, the legislative discretion must be
allowed fully play, subject only to the test of reasonableness; and it is not contended that the means
provided in section 6 of the law (above quoted) bear no relation to the objective pursued or are

25

oppressive in character. If objective and methods are alike constitutionally valid, no reason is seen
why the state may not levy taxes to raise funds for their prosecution and attainment. Taxation may
be made the implement of the state's police power (Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. vs. Grosjean, 301 U.
S. 412, 81 L. Ed. 1193; U. S. vs. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477; M'Culloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat.
316, 4 L. Ed. 579).
That the tax to be levied should burden the sugar producers themselves can hardly be a ground of
complaint; indeed, it appears rational that the tax be obtained precisely from those who are to be
benefited from the expenditure of the funds derived from it. At any rate, it is inherent in the power to
tax that a state be free to select the subjects of taxation, and it has been repeatedly held that
"inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation, or exemption infringe
no constitutional limitation" (Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U. S. 495, 81 L. Ed.
1245, citing numerous authorities, at p. 1251).
From the point of view we have taken it appears of no moment that the funds raised under the Sugar
Stabilization Act, now in question, should be exclusively spent in aid of the sugar industry, since it is
that very enterprise that is being protected. It may be that other industries are also in need of similar
protection; that the legislature is not required by the Constitution to adhere to a policy of "all or
none." As ruled in Minnesota ex rel. Pearson vs. Probate Court, 309 U. S. 270, 84 L. Ed. 744, "if the
law presumably hits the evil where it is most felt, it is not to be overthrown because there are other
instances to which it might have been applied;" and that "the legislative authority, exerted within its
proper field, need not embrace all the evils within its reach" (N. L. R. B. vs. Jones & Laughlin Steel
Corp. 301 U. S. 1, 81 L. Ed. 893).
Even from the standpoint that the Act is a pure tax measure, it cannot be said that the devotion of tax
money to experimental stations to seek increase of efficiency in sugar production, utilization of byproducts and solution of allied problems, as well as to the improvements of living and working
conditions in sugar mills or plantations, without any part of such money being channeled directly to
private persons, constitutes expenditure of tax money for private purposes, (compare Everson vs.
Board of Education, 91 L. Ed. 472, 168 ALR 1392, 1400).
The decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellant. So ordered.
Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and Concepcion, JJ.,
concur.

26

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. L-67649 June 28, 1988
ENGRACIO FRANCIA, petitioner,
vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and HO FERNANDEZ, respondents.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

The petitioner invokes legal and equitable grounds to reverse the questioned decision of the
Intermediate Appellate Court, to set aside the auction sale of his property which took place on
December 5, 1977, and to allow him to recover a 203 square meter lot which was, sold at public
auction to Ho Fernandez and ordered titled in the latter's name.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Engracio Francia is the registered owner of a residential lot and a two-story house built upon it
situated at Barrio San Isidro, now District of Sta. Clara, Pasay City, Metro Manila. The lot, with an
area of about 328 square meters, is described and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4739
(37795) of the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City.
On October 15, 1977, a 125 square meter portion of Francia's property was expropriated by the
Republic of the Philippines for the sum of P4,116.00 representing the estimated amount equivalent
to the assessed value of the aforesaid portion.
Since 1963 up to 1977 inclusive, Francia failed to pay his real estate taxes. Thus, on December 5,
1977, his property was sold at public auction by the City Treasurer of Pasay City pursuant to Section
73 of Presidential Decree No. 464 known as the Real Property Tax Code in order to satisfy a tax
delinquency of P2,400.00. Ho Fernandez was the highest bidder for the property.
Francia was not present during the auction sale since he was in Iligan City at that time helping his
uncle ship bananas.
On March 3, 1979, Francia received a notice of hearing of LRC Case No. 1593-P "In re: Petition for
Entry of New Certificate of Title" filed by Ho Fernandez, seeking the cancellation of TCT No. 4739
(37795) and the issuance in his name of a new certificate of title. Upon verification through his
lawyer, Francia discovered that a Final Bill of Sale had been issued in favor of Ho Fernandez by the

27

City Treasurer on December 11, 1978. The auction sale and the final bill of sale were both annotated
at the back of TCT No. 4739 (37795) by the Register of Deeds.
On March 20, 1979, Francia filed a complaint to annul the auction sale. He later amended his
complaint on January 24, 1980.
On April 23, 1981, the lower court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the
amended complaint and ordering:
(a) The Register of Deeds of Pasay City to issue a new Transfer
Certificate of Title in favor of the defendant Ho Fernandez over the
parcel of land including the improvements thereon, subject to
whatever encumbrances appearing at the back of TCT No. 4739
(37795) and ordering the same TCT No. 4739 (37795) cancelled.
(b) The plaintiff to pay defendant Ho Fernandez the sum of P1,000.00
as attorney's fees. (p. 30, Record on Appeal)
The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the lower court in toto.
Hence, this petition for review.
Francia prefaced his arguments with the following assignments of grave errors of law:
I
RESPONDENT INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR OF LAW IN
NOT HOLDING PETITIONER'S OBLIGATION TO PAY P2,400.00 FOR SUPPOSED TAX
DELINQUENCY WAS SET-OFF BY THE AMOUNT OF P4,116.00 WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS
INDEBTED TO THE FORMER.
II
RESPONDENT INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED A GRAVE AND SERIOUS
ERROR IN NOT HOLDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT PROPERLY AND DULY NOTIFIED
THAT AN AUCTION SALE OF HIS PROPERTY WAS TO TAKE PLACE ON DECEMBER 5, 1977 TO
SATISFY AN ALLEGED TAX DELINQUENCY OF P2,400.00.
III
RESPONDENT INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT FURTHER COMMITTED A SERIOUS
ERROR AND GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PRICE OF
P2,400.00 PAID BY RESPONTDENT HO FERNANDEZ WAS GROSSLY INADEQUATE AS TO
SHOCK ONE'S CONSCIENCE AMOUNTING TO FRAUD AND A DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE AUCTION SALE MADE
THEREOF IS VOID. (pp. 10, 17, 20-21, Rollo)
We gave due course to the petition for a more thorough inquiry into the petitioner's allegations that
his property was sold at public auction without notice to him and that the price paid for the property
was shockingly inadequate, amounting to fraud and deprivation without due process of law.
A careful review of the case, however, discloses that Mr. Francia brought the problems raised in his
petition upon himself. While we commiserate with him at the loss of his property, the law and the
facts militate against the grant of his petition. We are constrained to dismiss it.
Francia contends that his tax delinquency of P2,400.00 has been extinguished by legal
compensation. He claims that the government owed him P4,116.00 when a portion of his land was

28

expropriated on October 15, 1977. Hence, his tax obligation had been set-off by operation of law as
of October 15, 1977.
There is no legal basis for the contention. By legal compensation, obligations of persons, who in
their own right are reciprocally debtors and creditors of each other, are extinguished (Art. 1278, Civil
Code). The circumstances of the case do not satisfy the requirements provided by Article 1279, to
wit:
(1) that each one of the obligors be bound principally and that he be at the same time
a principal creditor of the other;
xxx xxx xxx
(3) that the two debts be due.
xxx xxx xxx
This principal contention of the petitioner has no merit. We have consistently ruled that there can be
no off-setting of taxes against the claims that the taxpayer may have against the government. A
person cannot refuse to pay a tax on the ground that the government owes him an amount equal to
or greater than the tax being collected. The collection of a tax cannot await the results of a lawsuit
against the government.
In the case of Republic v. Mambulao Lumber Co. (4 SCRA 622), this Court ruled that Internal
Revenue Taxes can not be the subject of set-off or compensation. We stated that:
A claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract or judgment as is allowed to
be set-off under the statutes of set-off, which are construed uniformly, in the light of
public policy, to exclude the remedy in an action or any indebtedness of the state or
municipality to one who is liable to the state or municipality for taxes. Neither are they
a proper subject of recoupment since they do not arise out of the contract or
transaction sued on. ... (80 C.J.S., 7374). "The general rule based on grounds of
public policy is well-settled that no set-off admissible against demands for taxes
levied for general or local governmental purposes. The reason on which the general
rule is based, is that taxes are not in the nature of contracts between the party and
party but grow out of duty to, and are the positive acts of the government to the
making and enforcing of which, the personal consent of individual taxpayers is not
required. ..."
We stated that a taxpayer cannot refuse to pay his tax when called upon by the collector because he
has a claim against the governmental body not included in the tax levy.
This rule was reiterated in the case of Corders v. Gonda (18 SCRA 331) where we stated that: "...
internal revenue taxes can not be the subject of compensation: Reason: government and taxpayer
are not mutually creditors and debtors of each other' under Article 1278 of the Civil Code and a
"claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract or judgment as is allowed to be set-off."
There are other factors which compel us to rule against the petitioner. The tax was due to the city
government while the expropriation was effected by the national government. Moreover, the amount
of P4,116.00 paid by the national government for the 125 square meter portion of his lot was
deposited with the Philippine National Bank long before the sale at public auction of his remaining
property. Notice of the deposit dated September 28, 1977 was received by the petitioner on
September 30, 1977. The petitioner admitted in his testimony that he knew about the P4,116.00
deposited with the bank but he did not withdraw it. It would have been an easy matter to withdraw
P2,400.00 from the deposit so that he could pay the tax obligation thus aborting the sale at public
auction.
Petitioner had one year within which to redeem his property although, as well be shown later, he
claimed that he pocketed the notice of the auction sale without reading it.

29

Petitioner contends that "the auction sale in question was made without complying with the
mandatory provisions of the statute governing tax sale. No evidence, oral or otherwise, was
presented that the procedure outlined by law on sales of property for tax delinquency was
followed. ... Since defendant Ho Fernandez has the affirmative of this issue, the burden of proof
therefore rests upon him to show that plaintiff was duly and properly notified ... .(Petition for Review,
Rollo p. 18; emphasis supplied)
We agree with the petitioner's claim that Ho Fernandez, the purchaser at the auction sale, has the
burden of proof to show that there was compliance with all the prescribed requisites for a tax sale.
The case of Valencia v. Jimenez (11 Phil. 492) laid down the doctrine that:
xxx xxx xxx
... [D]ue process of law to be followed in tax proceedings must be established by
proof and thegeneral rule is that the purchaser of a tax title is bound to take upon
himself the burden of showing the regularity of all proceedings leading up to the
sale. (emphasis supplied)
There is no presumption of the regularity of any administrative action which results in depriving a
taxpayer of his property through a tax sale. (Camo v. Riosa Boyco, 29 Phil. 437); Denoga v. Insular
Government, 19 Phil. 261). This is actually an exception to the rule that administrative proceedings
are presumed to be regular.
But even if the burden of proof lies with the purchaser to show that all legal prerequisites have been
complied with, the petitioner can not, however, deny that he did receive the notice for the auction
sale. The records sustain the lower court's finding that:
[T]he plaintiff claimed that it was illegal and irregular. He insisted that he was not
properly notified of the auction sale. Surprisingly, however, he admitted in his
testimony that he received the letter dated November 21, 1977 (Exhibit "I") as shown
by his signature (Exhibit "I-A") thereof. He claimed further that he was not present on
December 5, 1977 the date of the auction sale because he went to Iligan City. As
long as there was substantial compliance with the requirements of the notice, the
validity of the auction sale can not be assailed ... .
We quote the following testimony of the petitioner on cross-examination, to wit:
Q. My question to you is this letter marked as Exhibit I for Ho
Fernandez notified you that the property in question shall be sold at
public auction to the highest bidder on December 5, 1977 pursuant to
Sec. 74 of PD 464. Will you tell the Court whether you received the
original of this letter?
A. I just signed it because I was not able to read the same. It was just
sent by mail carrier.
Q. So you admit that you received the original of Exhibit I and you
signed upon receipt thereof but you did not read the contents of it?
A. Yes, sir, as I was in a hurry.
Q. After you received that original where did you place it?
A. I placed it in the usual place where I place my mails.
Petitioner, therefore, was notified about the auction sale. It was negligence on his part when he
ignored such notice. By his very own admission that he received the notice, his now coming to court
assailing the validity of the auction sale loses its force.

30

Petitioner's third assignment of grave error likewise lacks merit. As a general rule, gross inadequacy
of price is not material (De Leon v. Salvador, 36 SCRA 567; Ponce de Leon v. Rehabilitation Finance
Corporation, 36 SCRA 289; Tolentino v. Agcaoili, 91 Phil. 917 Unrep.). See also Barrozo Vda. de
Gordon v. Court of Appeals (109 SCRA 388) we held that "alleged gross inadequacy of price is not
material when the law gives the owner the right to redeem as when a sale is made at public auction,
upon the theory that the lesser the price, the easier it is for the owner to effect redemption."
In Velasquez v. Coronel (5 SCRA 985), this Court held:
... [R]espondent treasurer now claims that the prices for which the lands were sold
are unconscionable considering the wide divergence between their assessed values
and the amounts for which they had been actually sold. However, while in ordinary
sales for reasons of equity a transaction may be invalidated on the ground of
inadequacy of price, or when such inadequacy shocks one's conscience as to justify
the courts to interfere, such does not follow when the law gives to the owner the right
to redeem, as when a sale is made at public auction, upon the theory that the lesser
the price the easier it is for the owner to effect the redemption. And so it was aptly
said: "When there is the right to redeem, inadequacy of price should not be material,
because the judgment debtor may reacquire the property or also sell his right to
redeem and thus recover the loss he claims to have suffered by reason of the price
obtained at the auction sale."
The reason behind the above rulings is well enunciated in the case of Hilton et. ux. v. De Long, et
al. (188 Wash. 162, 61 P. 2d, 1290):
If mere inadequacy of price is held to be a valid objection to a sale for taxes, the
collection of taxes in this manner would be greatly embarrassed, if not rendered
altogether impracticable. In Black on Tax Titles (2nd Ed.) 238, the correct rule is
stated as follows: "where land is sold for taxes, the inadequacy of the price given is
not a valid objection to the sale." This rule arises from necessity, for, if a fair price for
the land were essential to the sale, it would be useless to offer the property. Indeed,
it is notorious that the prices habitually paid by purchasers at tax sales are grossly
out of proportion to the value of the land. (Rothchild Bros. v. Rollinger, 32 Wash. 307,
73 P. 367, 369).
In this case now before us, we can aptly use the language of McGuire, et al. v. Bean, et al. (267 P.
555):
Like most cases of this character there is here a certain element of hardship from
which we would be glad to relieve, but do so would unsettle long-established rules
and lead to uncertainty and difficulty in the collection of taxes which are the life blood
of the state. We are convinced that the present rules are just, and that they bring
hardship only to those who have invited it by their own neglect.
We are inclined to believe the petitioner's claim that the value of the lot has greatly appreciated in
value. Precisely because of the widening of Buendia Avenue in Pasay City, which necessitated the
expropriation of adjoining areas, real estate values have gone up in the area. However, the price
quoted by the petitioner for a 203 square meter lot appears quite exaggerated. At any rate, the
foregoing reasons which answer the petitioner's claims lead us to deny the petition.
And finally, even if we are inclined to give relief to the petitioner on equitable grounds, there are no
strong considerations of substantial justice in his favor. Mr. Francia failed to pay his taxes for 14
years from 1963 up to the date of the auction sale. He claims to have pocketed the notice of sale
without reading it which, if true, is still an act of inexplicable negligence. He did not withdraw from the
expropriation payment deposited with the Philippine National Bank an amount sufficient to pay for
the back taxes. The petitioner did not pay attention to another notice sent by the City Treasurer on
November 3, 1978, during the period of redemption, regarding his tax delinquency. There is
furthermore no showing of bad faith or collusion in the purchase of the property by Mr. Fernandez.
The petitioner has no standing to invoke equity in his attempt to regain the property by belatedly
asking for the annulment of the sale.

31

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition for review is DISMISSED. The decision
of the respondent court is affirmed.
SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

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

October 6, 2008

QUEZON CITY and THE CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY, petitioners,

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.

32

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.

Date

Amount Paid

2464274

7/18/1995

P 1,489,977.28

2484651

10/20/1995

1,489,977.28

2536134

1/22/1996

2,880,975.65

8354906

1/23/1997

8,621,470.83

33

48756

1/23/1997

2,731,135.81

67352

4/3/1997

2,731,135.81

Total

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.

Date

Amount Paid

2536134

1-22-96

P 2,880,975.65

8354906

1-23-97

8,621,470.83

0048756

1-23-97

2,731,135.81

Total

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 FortyFour Thousand Six Hundred Seventy-Two and 66/100 centavos (P19,944,672.66) broken down as
follows:

O.R. No.

Date

Amount Paid

2464274

7-18-95

P 1,489,977.28

2484651

10-20-95

1,489,977.28

2536134

1-22-96

2,880,975.65

8354906

1-23-97

8,621,470.83

0048756

1-23-97

2,731,135.81

34

0067352

Total

4-03-97

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 ABSCBN 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 ThirtyOne Thousand One Hundred Thirty-Five and 81/100 centavos (P2,731,135.81) and of other
amounts of local franchise tax as may have been and will be paid by ABS-CBN until the resolution of
the case.
Quezon City insisted that the claim for refund must fail because of the absence of a prior written
claim for it.
RTC and CA Dispositions
On January 20, 1999, the RTC rendered judgment declaring as invalid the imposition on and
collection from ABS-CBN of local franchise tax paid pursuant to Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-91,
S-93, after the enactment of R.A. No. 7966, and ordered the refund of all payments made. The
dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the imposition on and collection from
plaintiff ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION of local franchise taxes pursuant to
Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-91, S-93 after the enactment of Republic Act No. 7966 to be
invalid, and, accordingly, the Court hereby orders the defendants to refund all its payments
made after the effectivity of its legislative franchise on May 3, 1995.
SO ORDERED.9
In its decision, the RTC ruled that the "in lieu of all taxes" provision contained in Section 8 of R.A.
No. 7966 absolutely excused ABS-CBN from the payment of local franchise tax imposed under
Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-91, S-93. The intent of the legislature to excuse ABS-CBN from
payment of local franchise tax could be discerned from the usage of the "in lieu of all taxes"
provision and from the absence of any qualification except income taxes. Had Congress intended to
exclude taxes imposed from the exemption, it would have expressly mentioned so in a fashion
similar to the proviso on income taxes.
The RTC also based its ruling on the 1990 case of Province of Misamis Oriental v. Cagayan Electric
Power and Light Company, Inc. (CEPALCO).10 In said case, the exemption of respondent electric
company CEPALCO from payment of provincial franchise tax was upheld on the ground that the
franchise of CEPALCO was a special law, while the Local Tax Code, on which the provincial
ordinance imposing the local franchise tax was based, was a general law. Further, it was held that
whenever there is a conflict between two laws, one special and particular and the other general, the
special law must be taken as intended to constitute an exception to the general act.
The RTC noted that the legislative franchise of ABS-CBN was granted years after the effectivity of
the LGC. Thus, it was unavoidable to conclude that Section 8 of R.A. No. 7966 was an exception

35

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:

36

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

37

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.

38

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

39

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.25sustained 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.

40

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. ABSCBN 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

41

(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 valueadded 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.

42

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.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-31156 February 27, 1976
PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
MUNICIPALITY OF TANAUAN, LEYTE, THE MUNICIPAL MAYOR, ET AL., defendant appellees.
Sabido, Sabido & Associates for appellant.
Provincial Fiscal Zoila M. Redona & Assistant Provincial Fiscal Bonifacio R Matol and Assistant
Solicitor General Conrado T. Limcaoco & Solicitor Enrique M. Reyes for appellees.

MARTIN, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Leyte in its Civil Case No. 3294,
which was certified to Us by the Court of Appeals on October 6, 1969, as involving only pure
questions of law, challenging the power of taxation delegated to municipalities under the Local
Autonomy Act (Republic Act No. 2264, as amended, June 19, 1959).
On February 14, 1963, the plaintiff-appellant, Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, Inc.,
commenced a complaint with preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of Leyte for
that court to declare Section 2 of Republic Act No. 2264. 1 otherwise known as the Local Autonomy Act,
unconstitutional as an undue delegation of taxing authority as well as to declare Ordinances Nos. 23 and
27, series of 1962, of the municipality of Tanauan, Leyte, null and void.

43

On July 23, 1963, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Facts, the material portions of which state
that, first, both Ordinances Nos. 23 and 27 embrace or cover the same subject matter and the
production tax rates imposed therein are practically the same, and second, that on January 17,
1963, the acting Municipal Treasurer of Tanauan, Leyte, as per his letter addressed to the Manager
of the Pepsi-Cola Bottling Plant in said municipality, sought to enforce compliance by the latter of the
provisions of said Ordinance No. 27, series of 1962.
Municipal Ordinance No. 23, of Tanauan, Leyte, which was approved on September 25, 1962, levies
and collects "from soft drinks producers and manufacturers a tai of one-sixteenth (1/16) of a centavo
for every bottle of soft drink corked." 2 For the purpose of computing the taxes due, the person, firm,
company or corporation producing soft drinks shall submit to the Municipal Treasurer a monthly report, of
the total number of bottles produced and corked during the month. 3
On the other hand, Municipal Ordinance No. 27, which was approved on October 28, 1962, levies
and collects "on soft drinks produced or manufactured within the territorial jurisdiction of this
municipality a tax of ONE CENTAVO (P0.01) on each gallon (128 fluid ounces, U.S.) of volume
capacity." 4 For the purpose of computing the taxes due, the person, fun company, partnership,
corporation or plant producing soft drinks shall submit to the Municipal Treasurer a monthly report of the
total number of gallons produced or manufactured during the month. 5
The tax imposed in both Ordinances Nos. 23 and 27 is denominated as "municipal production tax.'
On October 7, 1963, the Court of First Instance of Leyte rendered judgment "dismissing the
complaint and upholding the constitutionality of [Section 2, Republic Act No. 2264] declaring
Ordinance Nos. 23 and 27 legal and constitutional; ordering the plaintiff to pay the taxes due under
the oft the said Ordinances; and to pay the costs."
From this judgment, the plaintiff Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company appealed to the Court of Appeals,
which, in turn, elevated the case to Us pursuant to Section 31 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as
amended.
There are three capital questions raised in this appeal:
1. Is Section 2, Republic Act No. 2264 an undue delegation of power, confiscatory
and oppressive?
2. Do Ordinances Nos. 23 and 27 constitute double taxation and impose
percentage or specific taxes?
3. Are Ordinances Nos. 23 and 27 unjust and unfair?
1. The power of taxation is an essential and inherent attribute of sovereignty, belonging as a matter
of right to every independent government, without being expressly conferred by the people. 6 It is a
power that is purely legislative and which the central legislative body cannot delegate either to the
executive or judicial department of the government without infringing upon the theory of separation of
powers. The exception, however, lies in the case of municipal corporations, to which, said theory does not
apply. Legislative powers may be delegated to local governments in respect of matters of local
concern. 7 This is sanctioned by immemorial practice. 8 By necessary implication, the legislative power to
create political corporations for purposes of local self-government carries with it the power to confer on
such local governmental agencies the power to tax. 9 Under the New Constitution, local governments are
granted the autonomous authority to create their own sources of revenue and to levy taxes. Section 5,
Article XI provides: "Each local government unit shall have the power to create its sources of revenue and
to levy taxes, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law." Withal, it cannot be said that Section
2 of Republic Act No. 2264 emanated from beyond the sphere of the legislative power to enact and vest in
local governments the power of local taxation.
The plenary nature of the taxing power thus delegated, contrary to plaintiff-appellant's pretense,
would not suffice to invalidate the said law as confiscatory and oppressive. In delegating the
authority, the State is not limited 6 the exact measure of that which is exercised by itself. When it is
said that the taxing power may be delegated to municipalities and the like, it is meant that there may
be delegated such measure of power to impose and collect taxes as the legislature may deem
expedient. Thus, municipalities may be permitted to tax subjects which for reasons of public policy
the State has not deemed wise to tax for more general purposes. 10 This is not to say though that the
constitutional injunction against deprivation of property without due process of law may be passed over
under the guise of the taxing power, except when the taking of the property is in the lawful exercise of the
taxing power, as when (1) the tax is for a public purpose; (2) the rule on uniformity of taxation is observed;
(3) either the person or property taxed is within the jurisdiction of the government levying the tax; and (4)
in the assessment and collection of certain kinds of taxes notice and opportunity for hearing are

44

provided. 11 Due process is usually violated where the tax imposed is for a private as distinguished from a
public purpose; a tax is imposed on property outside the State, i.e., extraterritorial taxation; and arbitrary
or oppressive methods are used in assessing and collecting taxes. But, a tax does not violate the due
process clause, as applied to a particular taxpayer, although the purpose of the tax will result in an injury
rather than a benefit to such taxpayer. Due process does not require that the property subject to the tax or
the amount of tax to be raised should be determined by judicial inquiry, and a notice and hearing as to the
amount of the tax and the manner in which it shall be apportioned are generally not necessary to due
process of law. 12

There is no validity to the assertion that the delegated authority can be declared unconstitutional on
the theory of double taxation. It must be observed that the delegating authority specifies the
limitations and enumerates the taxes over which local taxation may not be exercised. 13 The reason is
that the State has exclusively reserved the same for its own prerogative. Moreover, double taxation, in
general, is not forbidden by our fundamental law, since We have not adopted as part thereof the
injunction against double taxation found in the Constitution of the United States and some states of the
Union. 14 Double taxation becomes obnoxious only where the taxpayer is taxed twice for the benefit of the
same governmental entity 15 or by the same jurisdiction for the same purpose, 16 but not in a case where
one tax is imposed by the State and the other by the city or municipality. 17
2. The plaintiff-appellant submits that Ordinance No. 23 and 27 constitute double taxation, because
these two ordinances cover the same subject matter and impose practically the same tax rate. The
thesis proceeds from its assumption that both ordinances are valid and legally enforceable. This is
not so. As earlier quoted, Ordinance No. 23, which was approved on September 25, 1962, levies or
collects from soft drinks producers or manufacturers a tax of one-sixteen (1/16) of a centavo for
.every bottle corked, irrespective of the volume contents of the bottle used. When it was discovered
that the producer or manufacturer could increase the volume contents of the bottle and still pay the
same tax rate, the Municipality of Tanauan enacted Ordinance No. 27, approved on October 28,
1962, imposing a tax of one centavo (P0.01) on each gallon (128 fluid ounces, U.S.) of volume
capacity. The difference between the two ordinances clearly lies in the tax rate of the soft drinks
produced: in Ordinance No. 23, it was 1/16 of a centavo for every bottle corked; in Ordinance No.
27, it is one centavo (P0.01) on each gallon (128 fluid ounces, U.S.) of volume capacity. The
intention of the Municipal Council of Tanauan in enacting Ordinance No. 27 is thus clear: it was
intended as a plain substitute for the prior Ordinance No. 23, and operates as a repeal of the latter,
even without words to that effect. 18 Plaintiff-appellant in its brief admitted that defendants-appellees are
only seeking to enforce Ordinance No. 27, series of 1962. Even the stipulation of facts confirms the fact
that the Acting Municipal Treasurer of Tanauan, Leyte sought t6 compel compliance by the plaintiffappellant of the provisions of said Ordinance No. 27, series of 1962. The aforementioned admission
shows that only Ordinance No. 27, series of 1962 is being enforced by defendants-appellees. Even the
Provincial Fiscal, counsel for defendants-appellees admits in his brief "that Section 7 of Ordinance No.
27, series of 1962 clearly repeals Ordinance No. 23 as the provisions of the latter are inconsistent with
the provisions of the former."
That brings Us to the question of whether the remaining Ordinance No. 27 imposes a percentage or
a specific tax. Undoubtedly, the taxing authority conferred on local governments under Section 2,
Republic Act No. 2264, is broad enough as to extend to almost "everything, accepting those which
are mentioned therein." As long as the text levied under the authority of a city or municipal ordinance
is not within the exceptions and limitations in the law, the same comes within the ambit of the
general rule, pursuant to the rules of exclucion attehus and exceptio firmat regulum in cabisus non
excepti 19 The limitation applies, particularly, to the prohibition against municipalities and municipal
districts to impose "any percentage tax or other taxes in any form based thereon nor impose taxes on
articles subject to specific tax except gasoline, under the provisions of the National Internal Revenue
Code." For purposes of this particular limitation, a municipal ordinance which prescribes a set ratio
between the amount of the tax and the volume of sale of the taxpayer imposes a sales tax and is null and
void for being outside the power of the municipality to enact. 20But, the imposition of "a tax of one centavo
(P0.01) on each gallon (128 fluid ounces, U.S.) of volume capacity" on all soft drinks produced or
manufactured under Ordinance No. 27 does not partake of the nature of a percentage tax on sales, or
other taxes in any form based thereon. The tax is levied on the produce (whether sold or not) and not on
the sales. The volume capacity of the taxpayer's production of soft drinks is considered solely for
purposes of determining the tax rate on the products, but there is not set ratio between the volume of
sales and the amount of the tax. 21
Nor can the tax levied be treated as a specific tax. Specific taxes are those imposed on specified
articles, such as distilled spirits, wines, fermented liquors, products of tobacco other than cigars and
cigarettes, matches firecrackers, manufactured oils and other fuels, coal, bunker fuel oil, diesel fuel
oil, cinematographic films, playing cards, saccharine, opium and other habit-forming drugs. 22 Soft
drink is not one of those specified.
3. The tax of one (P0.01) on each gallon (128 fluid ounces, U.S.) of volume capacity on all
softdrinks, produced or manufactured, or an equivalent of 1- centavos per case, 23 cannot be

45

considered unjust and unfair. 24 an increase in the tax alone would not support the claim that the tax is
oppressive, unjust and confiscatory. Municipal corporations are allowed much discretion in determining
the reates of imposable taxes. 25 This is in line with the constutional policy of according the widest
possible autonomy to local governments in matters of local taxation, an aspect that is given expression in
the Local Tax Code (PD No. 231, July 1, 1973). 26 Unless the amount is so excessive as to be
prohibitive, courts will go slow in writing off an ordinance as unreasonable. 27 Reluctance should not
deter compliance with an ordinance such as Ordinance No. 27 if the purpose of the law to further
strengthen local autonomy were to be realized. 28

Finally, the municipal license tax of P1,000.00 per corking machine with five but not more than ten
crowners or P2,000.00 with ten but not more than twenty crowners imposed on manufacturers,
producers, importers and dealers of soft drinks and/or mineral waters under Ordinance No. 54,
series of 1964, as amended by Ordinance No. 41, series of 1968, of defendant
Municipality, 29 appears not to affect the resolution of the validity of Ordinance No. 27. Municipalities are
empowered to impose, not only municipal license taxes upon persons engaged in any business or
occupation but also to levy for public purposes, just and uniform taxes. The ordinance in question
(Ordinance No. 27) comes within the second power of a municipality.
ACCORDINGLY, the constitutionality of Section 2 of Republic Act No. 2264, otherwise known as the
Local Autonomy Act, as amended, is hereby upheld and Municipal Ordinance No. 27 of the
Municipality of Tanauan, Leyte, series of 1962, re-pealing Municipal Ordinance No. 23, same series,
is hereby declared of valid and legal effect. Costs against petitioner-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Castro, C.J., Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra, Muoz Palma, Aquino and
Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

FERNANDO, J., concurring:

The opinion of the Court penned by Justice Martin is impressed with a scholarly and comprehensive
character. Insofar as it shows adherence to tried and tested concepts of the law of municipal
taxation, I am only in agreement. If I limit myself to concurrence in the result, it is primarily because
with the article on Local Autonomy found in the present Constitution, I feel a sense of reluctance in
restating doctrines that arose from a different basic premise as to the scope of such power in
accordance with the 1935 Charter. Nonetheless it is well-nigh unavoidable that I do so as I am
unable to share fully what for me are the nuances and implications that could arise from the
approach taken by my brethren. Likewise as to the constitutional aspect of the thorny question of
double taxation, I would limit myself to what has been set forth in City of Baguio v. De Leon. 1
1. The present Constitution is quite explicit as to the power of taxation vested in local and municipal
corporations. It is therein specifically provided: "Each local government unit shall have the power to
create its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes subject to such limitations as may be provided
by law. 2 That was not the case under the 1935 Charter. The only limitation then on the authority, plenary
in character of the national government, was that while the President of the Philippines was vested with
the power of control over all executive departments, bureaus, or offices, he could only . It exercise
general supervision over all local governments as may be provided by law ... 3 As far as legislative power
over local government was concerned, no restriction whatsoever was placed on the Congress of the
Philippines. It would appear therefore that the extent of the taxing power was solely for the legislative
body to decide. It is true that in 1939, there was a statute that enlarged the scope of the municipal taxing
power. 4 Thereafter, in 1959 such competence was further expanded in the Local Autonomy
Act. 5 Nevertheless, as late as December of 1964, five years after its enactment of the Local Autonomy
Act, this Court, through Justice Dizon, in Golden Ribbon Lumber Co. v. City of Butuan, 6reaffirmed the
traditional concept in these words: "The rule is well-settled that municipal corporations, unlike sovereign
states, after clothed with no power of taxation; that its charter or a statute must clearly show an intent to
confer that power or the municipal corporation cannot assume and exercise it, and that any such power
granted must be construed strictly, any doubt or ambiguity arising from the terms of the grant to be
resolved against the municipality." 7

46

Taxation, according to Justice Parades in the earlier case of Tan v. Municipality of Pagbilao, 8 "is an
attribute of sovereignty which municipal corporations do not enjoy." 9 That case left no doubt either as to
weakness of a claim "based merely by inferences, implications and deductions, [as they have no place in
the interpretation of the power to tax of a municipal corporation." 10 As the conclusion reached by the
Court finds support in such grant of the municipal taxing power, I concur in the result. 2. As to any
possible infirmity based on an alleged double taxation, I would prefer to rely on the doctrine announced by
this Court in City of Baguio v. De Leon. 11 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 grouse With
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 justice 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 stage. 'In a
1947 decision, however, we quoted with approval this excerpt from a leading American decision: 'Where,
as here, Congress has clearly expressed its intention, the statute must be sustained even though double
taxation results. 12
So I would view the issues in this suit and accordingly concur in the result.
Separate Opinions

FERNANDO, J., concurring:

The opinion of the Court penned by Justice Martin is impressed with a scholarly and comprehensive
character. Insofar as it shows adherence to tried and tested concepts of the law of municipal
taxation, I am only in agreement. If I limit myself to concurrence in the result, it is primarily because
with the article on Local Autonomy found in the present Constitution, I feel a sense of reluctance in
restating doctrines that arose from a different basic premise as to the scope of such power in
accordance with the 1935 Charter. Nonetheless it is well-nigh unavoidable that I do so as I am
unable to share fully what for me are the nuances and implications that could arise from the
approach taken by my brethren. Likewise as to the constitutional aspect of the thorny question of
double taxation, I would limit myself to what has been set forth in City of Baguio v. De Leon. 1
1. The present Constitution is quite explicit as to the power of taxation vested in local and municipal
corporations. It is therein specifically provided: "Each local government unit shall have the power to
create its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes subject to such limitations as may be provided
by law. 2 That was not the case under the 1935 Charter. The only limitation then on the authority, plenary
in character of the national government, was that while the President of the Philippines was vested with
the power of control over all executive departments, bureaus, or offices, he could only . It exercise
general supervision over all local governments as may be provided by law ... 3 As far as legislative power
over local government was concerned, no restriction whatsoever was placed on the Congress of the
Philippines. It would appear therefore that the extent of the taxing power was solely for the legislative
body to decide. It is true that in 1939, there was a statute that enlarged the scope of the municipal taxing
power. 4 Thereafter, in 1959 such competence was further expanded in the Local Autonomy
Act. 5 Nevertheless, as late as December of 1964, five years after its enactment of the Local Autonomy
Act, this Court, through Justice Dizon, in Golden Ribbon Lumber Co. v. City of Butuan, 6reaffirmed the
traditional concept in these words: "The rule is well-settled that municipal corporations, unlike sovereign
states, after clothed with no power of taxation; that its charter or a statute must clearly show an intent to
confer that power or the municipal corporation cannot assume and exercise it, and that any such power
granted must be construed strictly, any doubt or ambiguity arising from the terms of the grant to be
resolved against the municipality." 7
Taxation, according to Justice Parades in the earlier case of Tan v. Municipality of Pagbilao, 8 "is an
attribute of sovereignty which municipal corporations do not enjoy." 9 That case left no doubt either as to
weakness of a claim "based merely by inferences, implications and deductions, [as they have no place in
the interpretation of the power to tax of a municipal corporation." 10 As the conclusion reached by the
Court finds support in such grant of the municipal taxing power, I concur in the result. 2. As to any
possible infirmity based on an alleged double taxation, I would prefer to rely on the doctrine announced by
this Court in City of Baguio v. De Leon. 11 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 grouse With
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 justice 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 stage. 'In a
1947 decision, however, we quoted with approval this excerpt from a leading American decision: 'Where,
as here, Congress has clearly expressed its intention, the statute must be sustained even though double
taxation results. 12

47

So I would view the issues in this suit and accordingly concur in the result.
Footnotes

1 "Sec. 2. Taxation. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, all

chartered cities, municipalities and municipal districts shall have authority to impose
municipal license taxes or fees upon persons engaged in any occupation or
business, or exercising private in chartered cities, municipalities and municipal
districts by requiring them to secure licenses at rates fixed by the municipal board or
city council of the city, the municipal council of the municipality, or the municipal
district council of the municipal district to collect fees and charges for service
rendered by the city, municipality or municipal district; to regulate and impose
reasonable for services rendered in connection with any business, profession
occupation being conducted within the city, municipality or municipal district and
otherwise to levy for public purposes, just and uniform taxes, licenses or fees:
Provided, That municipalities and municipal districts shall, in no case, impose any
percentage tax on sales or other taxes in any form based thereon nor impose taxes
on articles subject to specific tax, except gasoline, under the provisions of the
National Internal Revenue Code: Provided, however, That no city, municipality or
municipal district may levy or impose any of the following:
(a) Residence tax;
(b) Documentary stamp tax;
(c) Taxes on the business of any newspaper engaged in the printing and publication
of any newspaper, magazine, review or bulletin appearing at regular interval and
having fixed prices for subscription and sale, and which is not published primarily for
the purpose of publishing advertisements;
(d) Taxes on persons operating waterworks, irrigation and other public utilities except
electric light, heat and power;
(e) Taxes on forest products and forest concessions;
(f) Taxes on estates, inheritance, gifts, legacies and other acquisitions mortis causa
(g) Taxes on income of any kind whatsoever;
(h) Taxes or fees for the registration of motor vehicles and for the issuance of all
kinds of licenses or permits for the driving thereof;
(i) Customs duties registration, wharfage on wharves owned by the national
government, tonnage and all other kinds of customs fees, charges and dues;
(j) Taxes of any kind on banks, insurance companies, and persons paying franchise
tax:
(k) Taxes on premiums paid by owners of property who obtain insurance directly with
foreign insurance companies; and
(i) Taxes, fees or levies, of any kind, which in effect impose a burden on exports of
Philippine finished, manufactured or processed products and products of Philippine
cottage industries.
2 Section 2.
3 Section 3.
4 Section 2.
5 Section 3.
6 Cooley, The Law of Taxation, Vol. 1, Fourth Edition, 149-150.

48

7 Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the Phil., Inc. vs. City of Butuan, L-22814, August 28,
1968, 24 SCRA 793-96.
8 Rubi v. Prov. Brd. of Mindoro, 39 Phil. 702 (1919).
9 Cooley, ante at 190.
10 Idem at 198-200.
11 Malcolm, Philippine Constitutional Law, 513-14.
12 Cooley ante at 334.
13 See footnote 1.
14 Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the Phil. Inc. vs. City of Butuan, 1, 2S 1 4, August 28,
1968, 24 SCRA 793-96. See Sec. 22, Art. VI, 1935
Constitution and Sec. 17 (1), Art. VIII, 1973 Constitution.
15 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Lednicky L- 18169, July 31, 1964, 11 SCRA
609.
16 SMB, Inc. v. City of Cebu, L-20312, February 26, 1972, 43 SCRA 280.
17 Punzalan v. Mun. Bd of City of Manila, 50 O.G. 2485; manufacturers Life Ins. Co.
v. Meer, 89 Phil. 351 (1951).
18 McQuillin. Municipal Corporations, 3rd. Ed., Vol. 6, at 206.-210.
19 Villanueva v. City of Iloilo, L-26521, December 28, 1968, 26 SCRA 585-86; Nin
Bay Mining Co. v. Mun. of Roxas, Palawan, L-20125, July 20, 1965, 14 SCRA 66364.
20 Arabay, Inc. v. CFI of Zamboanga del Norte, et al., L-27684, September 10, 1975.
21 SMB, Inc. v. City of Cebu, ante, Footnote 16.
22 Shell Co. of P.I. Ltd. v. Vao, 94 Phil. 394-95 (1954); Sections 123-148, NIRC; RA
No. 953, Narcotic Drugs Law, June 20, 1953.
23 Brief, defendants-appellees, at 14. A regular bottle of Pepsi-Cola soft drinks
contains 8 oz., or 192 oz. per case of 24 bottles; a family-size contains 26 oz., or 312
oz. per case of 12 bottles.
24 See Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the Phil., Inc. v. City of Butuan, ante, Footnote 14,
where the tax rate is P.10 per case of 24 bottles; City of Bacolod v. Gruet, L-18290,
January 31, 1963, 7 SCRA 168-69, where the tax is P.03 on every case of bottled
Coca-Coal.
25 Northern Philippines Tobacco Corp. v. Mun. of Agoo, La Union, L-26447, January
30, 1971, 31 SCRA 308.
26 William Lines, Inc. v. City of Ozamis, L-350048, April 23, 1974, 56 SCRA 593,
Second Division, per Fernando, J.
27 Victorias Milling Co. v. Mun. of Victorias, L-21183, September 27, 1968, 25 SCRa
205.
28 Procter & Gamble Trading Co. v. Mun. of Medina, Misamis Oriental, L-29125,
January 31, 1973, 43 SCRA 133-34.
29 Subject of plaintiff-appellant's Motion for Admission and consideration of Essential
Newly Dissevered Evidence, dated April 30, 1969.

49

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. L-28271 July 25, 1975

SMITH, BELL AND CO. (PHIL.), INC., petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent.
Hildawa and Gomez for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres,
Solicitor Lolita O. Gal-lang and Special Attorney Gamaliel H. Mantolino for respondent.

CASTRO, J.:
This is a petition for review of the decision of the court of Tax Appeals in case 1733 which affirms the
deficiency assessment made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue against the petitioner Smith,
Bell & Co. in the amount of P11,713.90.
We affirm the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals.
From August 1963 to August 1965 the petitioner imported 119 cases of "Chatteau Gay" wine which it
declared as "still wine" under Section 134(b)of the Tax Code and paid thereon the specific tax of

50

P1.00 per liter of volume capacity. To determine the correct amount of the specific tax due on the
petitioner's importation, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (hereinafter referred to as the
Commissioner) ordered it tested and analyzed in the Bureau of Internal Revenue Laboratory Center.
The analyst who conducted the laboratory test reported that Chatteau Gay "is a delicate table wine,
with an alcohol content of 9.5% by volume (volume 745 cc @ 290C), characterized with explosion
upon opening and effervescence due to CO2 (residual)," and concluded that it should be classified
as "sparkling wine." The analyst's conclusion is supported by Herstein and Jacobs who, in their book
entitled "Chemistry & Technology of Wines and Liquors," wrote:
(f) Sparkling wines are bottled before the fermentation has ceased so that they
contain carbon dioxide gas in solution at greater than atmospheric pressure. When
they are served, the carbon dioxide is liberated with effervescence. These gas and
alcoholic contents vary according to the market for which they are intended. They
may be dry or sweet, light or strong. Champagne, sparkling Burgundy, and AstiSpumante are examples of sparkling wines.
On the basis of the analyst's report and recommendation, the Commissioner, on October 11, 1965,
assessed the petitioner a deficiency specific tax on the 119 cases of imported Chatteau Gay in the
sum of P11,713.90 under Section 134(a) of the Tax Code which imposes a specific tax of P12.00 per
liter of volume capacity on sparkling wines.
The petitioner does not dispute the mathematical correctness of the Commissioner's assessment,
but contends that the assessment is unconstitutional because Section 134(a) of the Tax Code under
which it was issued lays down an insufficient and hazy standard by which the policy and purpose of
the law may be ascertained and as well gives the Commissioner blanket authority to decide what is
or is not the meaning of "sparkling wines." The argument is thus advanced that there is here an
abdication of legislative power violative of the established doctrine, delegata potestas non potest
delegate, and the due process clause of the Constitution. The Commissioner disagrees on the
ground that Chapter I, Title IV of the Tax Code in no uncertain terms specifies the articles subject to
specific taxes, among which are wines, and Section 134 does no more than classify wines in several
categories and prescribe the corresponding amounts of tax to be paid. The Commissioner's position
was sustained by the Court of Tax Appeals in its decision dated October 5, 1967.
The contention that in regard to Section 134(a) of the Tax Code there is an unconstitutional
surrender of legislative powers and a failure of due process, need not give us more than a
momentary pause.
Section 134 of the Tax Code provides: 1
Specific tax on wines. On wines and imitation wines there shall be collected, per
liter of volume capacity, the following taxes:
(a) Sparkling wines, regardless of proof, twelve pesos.
(b) Still wines containing fourteen per centum of alcohol or less, except those
produced from casuy and duhat, one peso.
(c) Still wines containing more than fourteen per centum of alcohol, two pesos.
Imitation wines containing more than twenty-five per centum of alcohol shall be taxed
as distilled spirits.
There can be no uncertainty that the purpose of the abovequoted provision is to impose a specific
tax on wines and imitation wines. The first clause of Section 134 states so in plain language. The
sole object of the sub-enumeration that follows is in turn unmistakably to prescribe the amount of the
tax specifically to be paid for each type of wine and/or imitation wine so classified and described.
The section therefore clearly and indubitably discloses the legislative will, leaving to the officers
charged with implementation and execution thereof no more than the administrative function of
determining whether a particular kind of wine or imitation wine falls in one class or another. In the
performance of this function, the internal revenue officers are demonstrably guided by the sound

51

established practices and technology of the wine industry, an industry as aged and widely dispersed
as one can care to know.
In the case at bar, the Commissioner had the petitioner's wine examined and analyzed. The
petitioner, on the other hand, does not appear to have made a similar effort. On the bases of the test
thus made and the authoritative and published work on the subject of wines, the Commissioner
ordered the corresponding deficiency assessment to be issued. Having chosen to engage in the
wine trading business, the petitioner is duty bound to know the kinds of wine it deals in, particularly
insofar as such knowledge may be relevant to the proper appreciation of its tax liabilities, and cannot
take comfort in its pretended ignorance of what sparkling wine is.
ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is affirmed, at petitioner's cost.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-18994

June 29, 1963

MELECIO R. DOMINGO, as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, petitioner,

vs.
HON. LORENZO C. GARLITOS, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Leyte,
and SIMEONA K. PRICE, as Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of the late Walter Scott
Price,respondents.
Office of the Solicitor General and Atty. G. H. Mantolino for petitioner.
Benedicto and Martinez for respondents.
LABRADOR, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus against the Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Leyte, Ron. Lorenzo C. Garlitos, presiding, seeking to annul certain orders of the court and for an

52

order in this Court directing the respondent court below to execute the judgment in favor of the
Government against the estate of Walter Scott Price for internal revenue taxes.
It appears that in Melecio R. Domingo vs. Hon. Judge S. C. Moscoso, G.R. No. L-14674, January
30, 1960, this Court declared as final and executory the order for the payment by the estate of the
estate and inheritance taxes, charges and penalties, amounting to P40,058.55, issued by the Court
of First Instance of Leyte in, special proceedings No. 14 entitled "In the matter of the Intestate Estate
of the Late Walter Scott Price." In order to enforce the claims against the estate the fiscal presented
a petition dated June 21, 1961, to the court below for the execution of the judgment. The petition
was, however, denied by the court which held that the execution is not justifiable as the Government
is indebted to the estate under administration in the amount of P262,200. The orders of the court
below dated August 20, 1960 and September 28, 1960, respectively, are as follows:
Atty. Benedicto submitted a copy of the contract between Mrs. Simeona K. Price,
Administratrix of the estate of her late husband Walter Scott Price and Director Zoilo Castrillo
of the Bureau of Lands dated September 19, 1956 and acknowledged before Notary Public
Salvador V. Esguerra, legal adviser in Malacaang to Executive Secretary De Leon dated
December 14, 1956, the note of His Excellency, Pres. Carlos P. Garcia, to Director Castrillo
dated August 2, 1958, directing the latter to pay to Mrs. Price the sum ofP368,140.00, and an
extract of page 765 of Republic Act No. 2700 appropriating the sum of P262.200.00 for the
payment to the Leyte Cadastral Survey, Inc., represented by the administratrix Simeona K.
Price, as directed in the above note of the President. Considering these facts, the Court
orders that the payment of inheritance taxes in the sum of P40,058.55 due the Collector of
Internal Revenue as ordered paid by this Court on July 5, 1960 in accordance with the order
of the Supreme Court promulgated July 30, 1960 in G.R. No. L-14674, be deducted from the
amount of P262,200.00 due and payable to the Administratrix Simeona K. Price, in this
estate, the balance to be paid by the Government to her without further delay. (Order of
August 20, 1960)
The Court has nothing further to add to its order dated August 20, 1960 and it orders that the
payment of the claim of the Collector of Internal Revenue be deferred until the Government
shall have paid its accounts to the administratrix herein amounting to P262,200.00. It may
not be amiss to repeat that it is only fair for the Government, as a debtor, to its accounts to its
citizens-creditors before it can insist in the prompt payment of the latter's account to it,
specially taking into consideration that the amount due to the Government draws interests
while the credit due to the present state does not accrue any interest. (Order of September
28, 1960)
The petition to set aside the above orders of the court below and for the execution of the claim of the
Government against the estate must be denied for lack of merit. The ordinary procedure by which to
settle claims of indebtedness against the estate of a deceased person, as an inheritance tax, is for
the claimant to present a claim before the probate court so that said court may order the
administrator to pay the amount thereof. To such effect is the decision of this Court in Aldamiz vs.
Judge of the Court of First Instance of Mindoro, G.R. No. L-2360, Dec. 29, 1949, thus:
. . . a writ of execution is not the proper procedure allowed by the Rules of Court for the
payment of debts and expenses of administration. The proper procedure is for the court to
order the sale of personal estate or the sale or mortgage of real property of the deceased
and all debts or expenses of administrator and with the written notice to all the heirs legatees
and devisees residing in the Philippines, according to Rule 89, section 3, and Rule 90,
section 2. And when sale or mortgage of real estate is to be made, the regulations contained
in Rule 90, section 7, should be complied with.
1wph1.t

Execution may issue only where the devisees, legatees or heirs have entered into
possession of their respective portions in the estate prior to settlement and payment of the
debts and expenses of administration and it is later ascertained that there are such debts
and expenses to be paid, in which case "the court having jurisdiction of the estate may, by
order for that purpose, after hearing, settle the amount of their several liabilities, and order
how much and in what manner each person shall contribute, and mayissue execution if

53

circumstances require" (Rule 89, section 6; see also Rule 74, Section 4; Emphasis supplied.)
And this is not the instant case.
The legal basis for such a procedure is the fact that in the testate or intestate proceedings to settle
the estate of a deceased person, the properties belonging to the estate are under the jurisdiction of
the court and such jurisdiction continues until said properties have been distributed among the heirs
entitled thereto. During the pendency of the proceedings all the estate is in custodia legis and the
proper procedure is not to allow the sheriff, in case of the court judgment, to seize the properties but
to ask the court for an order to require the administrator to pay the amount due from the estate and
required to be paid.
Another ground for denying the petition of the provincial fiscal is the fact that the court having
jurisdiction of the estate had found that the claim of the estate against the Government has been
recognized and an amount of P262,200 has already been appropriated for the purpose by a
corresponding law (Rep. Act No. 2700). Under the above circumstances, both the claim of the
Government for inheritance taxes and the claim of the intestate for services rendered have already
become overdue and demandable is well as fully liquidated. Compensation, therefore, takes place
by operation of law, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1279 and 1290 of the Civil Code,
and both debts are extinguished to the concurrent amount, thus:
ART. 1200. When all the requisites mentioned in article 1279 are present, compensation
takes effect by operation of law, and extinguished both debts to the concurrent amount,
eventhough the creditors and debtors are not aware of the compensation.
It is clear, therefore, that the petitioner has no clear right to execute the judgment for taxes against
the estate of the deceased Walter Scott Price. Furthermore, the petition
for certiorari and mandamus is not the proper remedy for the petitioner. Appeal is the remedy.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed, without costs.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-4817

May 26, 1954

SILVESTER M. PUNSALAN, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,

vs.
THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF MANILA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

54

Calanog and Alafriz for plaintiffs-appellants.

City Fiscal Eugenio Angeles and Assistant Fiscal Eulogio S. Serreno for defendants-appellants.
REYES, J.:
This suit was commenced in the Court of First Instance of Manila by two lawyers, a medical
practitioner, a public accountant, a dental surgeon and a pharmacist, purportedly "in their own behalf
and in behalf of other professionals practising in the City of Manila who may desire to join it." Object
of the suit is the annulment of Ordinance No. 3398 of the City of Manila together with the provision of
the Manila charter authorizing it and the refund of taxes collected under the ordinance but paid under
protest.
The ordinance in question, which was approved by the municipal board of the City of Manila on July
25, 1950, imposes a municipal occupation tax on persons exercising various professions in the city
and penalizes non-payment of the tax "by a fine of not more than two hundred pesos or by
imprisonment of not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of
the court." Among the professions taxed were those to which plaintiffs belong. The ordinance was
enacted pursuant to paragraph (1) of section 18 of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila (as
amended by Republic Act No. 409), which empowers the Municipal Board of said city to impose a
municipal occupation tax, not to exceed P50 per annum, on persons engaged in the various
professions above referred to.
Having already paid their occupation tax under section 201 of the National Internal Revenue Code,
plaintiffs, upon being required to pay the additional tax prescribed in the ordinance, paid the same
under protest and then brought the present suit for the purpose already stated. The lower court
upheld the validity of the provision of law authorizing the enactment of the ordinance but declared
the ordinance itself illegal and void on the ground that the penalty there in provided for non-payment
of the tax was not legally authorized. From this decision both parties appealed to this Court, and the
only question they have presented for our determination is whether this ruling is correct or not, for
though the decision is silent on the refund of taxes paid plaintiffs make no assignment of error on
this point.
To begin with defendants' appeal, we find that the lower court was in error in saying that the
imposition of the penalty provided for in the ordinance was without the authority of law. The last
paragraph (kk) of the very section that authorizes the enactment of this tax ordinance (section 18 of
the Manila Charter) in express terms also empowers the Municipal Board "to fix penalties for the
violation of ordinances which shall not exceed to(sic) two hundred pesos fine or six months"
imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment, for a single offense."Hence, the pronouncement
below that the ordinance in question is illegal and void because it imposes a penalty not authorized
by law is clearly without basis.
As to plaintiffs' appeal, the contention in substance is that this ordinance and the law authorizing it
constitute class legislation, are unjust and oppressive, and authorize what amounts to double
taxation.
In raising the hue and cry of "class legislation", the burden of plaintiffs' complaint is not that the
professions to which they respectively belong have been singled out for the imposition of this
municipal occupation tax; and in any event, the Legislature may, in its discretion, select what
occupations shall be taxed, and in the exercise of that discretion it may tax all, or it may select for
taxation certain classes and leave the others untaxed. (Cooley on Taxation, Vol. 4, 4th ed., pp. 33933395.) Plaintiffs' complaint is that while the law has authorized the City of Manila to impose the said
tax, it has withheld that authority from other chartered cities, not to mention municipalities. We do not
think it is for the courts to judge what particular cities or municipalities should be empowered to
impose occupation taxes in addition to those imposed by the National Government. That matter is
peculiarly within the domain of the political departments and the courts would do well not to
encroach upon it. Moreover, as the seat of the National Government and with a population and
volume of trade many times that of any other Philippine city or municipality, Manila, no doubt, offers
a more lucrative field for the practice of the professions, so that it is but fair that the professionals in
Manila be made to pay a higher occupation tax than their brethren in the provinces.
Plaintiffs brand the ordinance unjust and oppressive because they say that it creates discrimination
within a class in that while professionals with offices in Manila have to pay the tax, outsiders who
have no offices in the city but practice their profession therein are not subject to the tax. Plaintiffs
make a distinction that is not found in the ordinance. The ordinance imposes the tax upon every
person "exercising" or "pursuing" in the City of Manila naturally any one of the occupations
named, but does not say that such person must have his office in Manila. What constitutes exercise
or pursuit of a profession in the city is a matter of judicial determination. The argument against

55

double taxation may not be invoked where one tax is imposed by the state and the other is imposed
by the city (1 Cooley on Taxation, 4th ed., p. 492), 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. (51 Am.
Jur., 341.)
In view of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is reversed in so far as it declares Ordinance
No. 3398 of the City of Manila illegal and void and affirmed in so far as it holds the validity of the
provision of the Manila charter authorizing it. With costs against plaintiffs-appellants.
Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions
PARAS, C.J., dissenting:
I am constrained to dissent from the decision of the majority upon the ground that the Municipal
Board of Manila cannot outlaw what Congress of the Philippines has already authorized. The
plaintiffs-appellants two lawyers, a physician, an accountant, a dentist and a pharmacist had
already paid the occupation tax under section 201 of the National Internal Revenue Code and are
thereby duly licensed to practice their respective professions throughout the Philippines; and yet
they had been required to pay another occupation tax under Ordinance No. 3398 for practising in the
City of Manila. This is a glaring example of contradiction the license granted by the National
Government is in effect withdrawn by the City in case of non-payment of the tax under the
ordinance. I fit be argued that the national occupation tax is collected to allow the professional
residing in Manila to pursue his calling in other places in the Philippines, it should then be exacted
only from professionals practising simultaneously in and outside of Manila. At any rate, we are
confronted with the following situation: Whereas the professionals elsewhere pay only one
occupation tax, in the City of Manila they have to pay two, although all are on equal footing insofar
as opportunities for earning money out of their pursuits are concerned. The statement that practice
in Manila is more lucrative than in the provinces, may be true perhaps with reference only to a
limited few, but certainly not to the general mass of practitioners in any field. Again, provincial
residents who have occasional or isolated practice in Manila may have to pay the city tax. This
obvious discrimination or lack of uniformity cannot be brushed aside or justified by any trite
pronouncement that double taxation is legitimate or that legislation may validly affect certain classes.
My position is that a professional who has paid the occupation tax under the National Internal
Revenue Code should be allowed to practice in Manila even without paying the similar tax imposed
by Ordinance No. 3398. The City cannot give what said professional already has. I would not say
that this Ordinance, enacted by the Municipal Board pursuant to paragraph 1 of section 18 of the
Revised Charter of Manila, as amended by Republic Act No. 409, empowering the Board to impose
a municipal occupation tax not to exceed P50 per annum, is invalid; but that only one tax, either
under the Internal Revenue Code or under Ordinance No. 3398, should be imposed upon a
practitioner in Manila.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-23794

February 17, 1968

ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY, INC., plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
THE TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ORMOC CITY, HON.
ESTEBAN C. CONEJOS as Mayor of Ormoc City and ORMOC CITY, defendants-appellees.

56

Ponce Enrile, Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Belo and Teehankee, Carreon & Taada for plaintiffappellant.
Ramon O. de Veyra for defendants-appellees.
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
On January 29, 1964, the Municipal Board of Ormoc City passed 1 Ordinance No. 4, Series of
1964, imposing "on any and all productions of centrifugal sugar milled at the Ormoc Sugar
Company, Inc., in Ormoc City a municipal tax equivalent to one per centum (1%) per export sale to
the United States of America and other foreign countries." 2
Payments for said tax were made, under protest, by Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. on March
20, 1964 for P7,087.50 and on April 20, 1964 for P5,000, or a total of P12,087.50.
On June 1, 1964, Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. filed before the Court of First Instance of Leyte,
with service of a copy upon the Solicitor General, a complaint 3 against the City of Ormoc as well as
its Treasurer, Municipal Board and Mayor, alleging that the afore-stated ordinance is unconstitutional
for being violative of the equal protection clause (Sec. 1[1], Art. III, Constitution) and the rule of
uniformity of taxation (Sec. 22[1]), Art. VI, Constitution), aside from being an export tax forbidden
under Section 2287 of the Revised Administrative Code. It further alleged that the tax is neither a
production nor a license tax which Ormoc City under Section 15-kk of its charter and under Section 2
of Republic Act 2264, otherwise known as the Local Autonomy Act, is authorized to impose; and that
the tax amounts to a customs duty, fee or charge in violation of paragraph 1 of Section 2 of Republic
Act 2264 because the tax is on both the sale and export of sugar.
Answering, the defendants asserted that the tax ordinance was within defendant city's power
to enact under the Local Autonomy Act and that the same did not violate the afore-cited
constitutional limitations. After pre-trial and submission of the case on memoranda, the Court of First
Instance, on August 6, 1964, rendered a decision that upheld the constitutionality of the ordinance
and declared the taxing power of defendant chartered city broadened by the Local Autonomy Act to
include all other forms of taxes, licenses or fees not excluded in its charter.
Appeal therefrom was directly taken to Us by plaintiff Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. Appellant
alleges the same statutory and constitutional violations in the aforesaid taxing ordinance mentioned
earlier.
Section 1 of the ordinance states: "There shall be paid to the City Treasurer on any and all
productions of centrifugal sugar milled at the Ormoc Sugar Company, Incorporated, in Ormoc City, a
municipal tax equivalent to one per centum (1%) per export sale to the United States of America and
other foreign countries." Though referred to as a tax on the export of centrifugal sugar produced at
Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. For production of sugar alone is not taxable; the only time the tax
applies is when the sugar produced is exported.
Appellant questions the authority of the defendant Municipal Board to levy such an export tax,
in view of Section 2287 of the Revised Administrative Code which denies from municipal councils the
power to impose an export tax. Section 2287 in part states: "It shall not be in the power of the
municipal council to impose a tax in any form whatever, upon goods and merchandise carried into
the municipality, or out of the same, and any attempt to impose an import or export tax upon such
goods in the guise of an unreasonable charge for wharfage use of bridges or otherwise, shall be
void."
Subsequently, however, Section 2 of Republic Act 2264 effective June 19, 1959, gave
chartered cities, municipalities and municipal districts authority to levy for public purposes just and
uniform taxes, licenses or fees. Anent the inconsistency between Section 2287 of the Revised
Administrative Code and Section 2 of Republic Act 2264, this Court, in Nin Bay Mining Co. v.
Municipality of Roxas 4 held the former to have been repealed by the latter. And expressing Our
awareness of the transcendental effects that municipal export or import taxes or licenses will have
on the national economy, due to Section 2 of Republic Act 2264, We stated that there was no other
alternative until Congress acts to provide remedial measures to forestall any unfavorable results.

57

The point remains to be determined, however, whether constitutional limits on the power of
taxation, specifically the equal protection clause and rule of uniformity of taxation, were infringed.
The Constitution in the bill of rights provides: ". . . nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws." (Sec. 1 [1], Art. III) In Felwa vs. Salas, 5 We ruled that the equal protection
clause applies only to persons or things identically situated and does not bar a reasonable
classification of the subject of legislation, and a classification is reasonable where (1) it is based on
substantial distinctions which make real differences; (2) these are germane to the purpose of the
law; (3) the classification applies not only to present conditions but also to future conditions which
are substantially identical to those of the present; (4) the classification applies only to those who
belong to the same class.
A perusal of the requisites instantly shows that the questioned ordinance does not meet them,
for it taxes only centrifugal sugar produced and exported by the Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. and
none other. At the time of the taxing ordinance's enactment, Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc., it is true,
was the only sugar central in the city of Ormoc. Still, the classification, to be reasonable, should be in
terms applicable to future conditions as well. The taxing ordinance should not be singular and
exclusive as to exclude any subsequently established sugar central, of the same class as plaintiff, for
the coverage of the tax. As it is now, even if later a similar company is set up, it cannot be subject to
the tax because the ordinance expressly points only to Ormoc City Sugar Company, Inc. as the
entity to be levied upon.
Appellant, however, is not entitled to interest; on the refund because the taxes were not
arbitrarily collected (Collector of Internal Revenue v. Binalbagan). 6 At the time of collection, the
ordinance provided a sufficient basis to preclude arbitrariness, the same being then presumed
constitutional until declared otherwise.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, the challenged ordinance is
declared unconstitutional and the defendants-appellees are hereby ordered to refund the
P12,087.50 plaintiff-appellant paid under protest. No costs. So ordered..
1wph1.t

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
58

EN BANC
G.R. No. 166715

August 14, 2008

ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST (formerly AASJS)1 OFFICERS/MEMBERS SAMSON

S. ALCANTARA, ED VINCENT S. ALBANO, ROMEO R. ROBISO, RENE B.
GOROSPE and EDWIN R. SANDOVAL, petitioners,
vs.
HON. CESAR V. PURISIMA, in his capacity as Secretary of Finance, HON.
GUILLERMO L. PARAYNO, JR., in his capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, and HON. ALBERTO D. LINA, in his Capacity as Commissioner
of Bureau of Customs, respondents.
DECISION
CORONA, J.:
This petition for prohibition1 seeks to prevent respondents from implementing and
enforcing Republic Act (RA) 93352 (Attrition Act of 2005).
RA 9335 was enacted to optimize the revenue-generation capability and collection of
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC). The law
intends to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to exceed their revenue
targets by providing a system of rewards and sanctions through the creation of a
Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund) and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board
(Board).3 It covers all officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC with at least six
months of service, regardless of employment status.4
The Fund is sourced from the collection of the BIR and the BOC in excess of their
revenue targets for the year, as determined by the Development Budget and
Coordinating Committee (DBCC). Any incentive or reward is taken from the fund and
allocated to the BIR and the BOC in proportion to their contribution in the excess
collection of the targeted amount of tax revenue. 5
The Boards in the BIR and the BOC are composed of the Secretary of the Department
of Finance (DOF) or his/her Undersecretary, the Secretary of the Department of Budget
and Management (DBM) or his/her Undersecretary, the Director General of the National
Economic Development Authority (NEDA) or his/her Deputy Director General, the
Commissioners of the BIR and the BOC or their Deputy Commissioners, two
representatives from the rank-and-file employees and a representative from the officials
nominated by their recognized organization.6
Each Board has the duty to (1) prescribe the rules and guidelines for the allocation,
distribution and release of the Fund; (2) set criteria and procedures for removing from
the service officials and employees whose revenue collection falls short of the target; (3)
terminate personnel in accordance with the criteria adopted by the Board; (4) prescribe
a system for performance evaluation; (5) perform other functions, including the issuance
of rules and regulations and (6) submit an annual report to Congress. 7
The DOF, DBM, NEDA, BIR, BOC and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) were tasked
to promulgate and issue the implementing rules and regulations of RA 9335, 8 to be
approved by a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created for such purpose. 9
Petitioners, invoking their right as taxpayers filed this petition challenging the
constitutionality of RA 9335, a tax reform legislation. They contend that, by establishing
a system of rewards and incentives, the law "transform[s] the officials and employees of
the BIR and the BOC into mercenaries and bounty hunters" as they will do their best
only in consideration of such rewards. Thus, the system of rewards and incentives
invites corruption and undermines the constitutionally mandated duty of these officials
59

and employees to serve the people with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and
efficiency.
Petitioners also claim that limiting the scope of the system of rewards and incentives
only to officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC violates the constitutional
guarantee of equal protection. There is no valid basis for classification or distinction as
to why such a system should not apply to officials and employees of all other
government agencies.
In addition, petitioners assert that the law unduly delegates the power to fix revenue
targets to the President as it lacks a sufficient standard on that matter. While Section
7(b) and (c) of RA 9335 provides that BIR and BOC officials may be dismissed from the
service if their revenue collections fall short of the target by at least 7.5%, the law does
not, however, fix the revenue targets to be achieved. Instead, the fixing of revenue
targets has been delegated to the President without sufficient standards. It will therefore
be easy for the President to fix an unrealistic and unattainable target in order to dismiss
BIR or BOC personnel.
Finally, petitioners assail the creation of a congressional oversight committee on the
ground that it violates the doctrine of separation of powers. While the legislative function
is deemed accomplished and completed upon the enactment and approval of the law,
the creation of the congressional oversight committee permits legislative participation in
the implementation and enforcement of the law.
In their comment, respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, question the
petition for being premature as there is no actual case or controversy yet. Petitioners
have not asserted any right or claim that will necessitate the exercise of this Courts
jurisdiction. Nevertheless, respondents acknowledge that public policy requires the
resolution of the constitutional issues involved in this case. They assert that the
allegation that the reward system will breed mercenaries is mere speculation and does
not suffice to invalidate the law. Seen in conjunction with the declared objective of RA
9335, the law validly classifies the BIR and the BOC because the functions they perform
are distinct from those of the other government agencies and instrumentalities.
Moreover, the law provides a sufficient standard that will guide the executive in the
implementation of its provisions. Lastly, the creation of the congressional oversight
committee under the law enhances, rather than violates, separation of powers. It
ensures the fulfillment of the legislative policy and serves as a check to any overaccumulation of power on the part of the executive and the implementing agencies.
After a careful consideration of the conflicting contentions of the parties, the Court finds
that petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionality in favor of
RA 9335, except as shall hereafter be discussed.
Actual Case And Ripeness
An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite
legal claims susceptible of judicial adjudication. 10 A closely related requirement is
ripeness, that is, the question must be ripe for adjudication. And a constitutional
question is ripe for adjudication when the governmental act being challenged has a
direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. 11 Thus, to be ripe for judicial
adjudication, the petitioner must show a personal stake in the outcome of the case or an
injury to himself that can be redressed by a favorable decision of the Court. 12
In this case, aside from the general claim that the dispute has ripened into a judicial
controversy by the mere enactment of the law even without any further overt
act,13 petitioners fail either to assert any specific and concrete legal claim or to
demonstrate any direct adverse effect of the law on them. They are unable to show a
personal stake in the outcome of this case or an injury to themselves. On this account,
their petition is procedurally infirm.
60

This notwithstanding, public interest requires the resolution of the constitutional issues
raised by petitioners. The grave nature of their allegations tends to cast a cloud on the
presumption of constitutionality in favor of the law. And where an action of the legislative
branch is alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in
fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. 14
Accountability of
Public Officers
Section 1, Article 11 of the Constitution states:
Sec. 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all
times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility,
integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism, and justice, and lead modest
lives.
Public office is a public trust. It must be discharged by its holder not for his own
personal gain but for the benefit of the public for whom he holds it in trust. By
demanding accountability and service with responsibility, integrity, loyalty, efficiency,
patriotism and justice, all government officials and employees have the duty to be
responsive to the needs of the people they are called upon to serve.
Public officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties.
This presumption necessarily obtains in favor of BIR and BOC officials and employees.
RA 9335 operates on the basis thereof and reinforces it by providing a system of
rewards and sanctions for the purpose of encouraging the officials and employees of
the BIR and the BOC to exceed their revenue targets and optimize their revenuegeneration capability and collection. 15
The presumption is disputable but proof to the contrary is required to rebut it. It cannot
be overturned by mere conjecture or denied in advance (as petitioners would have the
Court do) specially in this case where it is an underlying principle to advance a declared
public policy.
Petitioners claim that the implementation of RA 9335 will turn BIR and BOC officials and
employees into "bounty hunters and mercenaries" is not only without any factual and
legal basis; it is also purely speculative.
A law enacted by Congress enjoys the strong presumption of constitutionality. To justify
its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a
doubtful and equivocal one.16 To invalidate RA 9335 based on petitioners baseless
supposition is an affront to the wisdom not only of the legislature that passed it but also
of the executive which approved it.
Public service is its own reward. Nevertheless, public officers may by law be rewarded
for exemplary and exceptional performance. A system of incentives for exceeding the
set expectations of a public office is not anathema to the concept of public
accountability. In fact, it recognizes and reinforces dedication to duty, industry, efficiency
and loyalty to public service of deserving government personnel.
In United States v. Matthews,17 the U.S. Supreme Court validated a law which awards to
officers of the customs as well as other parties an amount not exceeding one-half of the
net proceeds of forfeitures in violation of the laws against smuggling. Citing Dorsheimer
v. United States,18 the U.S. Supreme Court said:
The offer of a portion of such penalties to the collectors is to stimulate and
reward their zeal and industry in detecting fraudulent attempts to evade payment
of duties and taxes.

61

In the same vein, employees of the BIR and the BOC may by law be entitled to a reward
when, as a consequence of their zeal in the enforcement of tax and customs laws, they
exceed their revenue targets. In addition, RA 9335 establishes safeguards to ensure
that the reward will not be claimed if it will be either the fruit of "bounty hunting or
mercenary activity" or the product of the irregular performance of official duties. One of
these precautionary measures is embodied in Section 8 of the law:
SEC. 8. Liability of Officials, Examiners and Employees of the BIR and the BOC.
The officials, examiners, and employees of the [BIR] and the [BOC] who violate
this Act or who are guilty of negligence, abuses or acts of malfeasance or
misfeasance or fail to exercise extraordinary diligence in the performance of their
duties shall be held liable for any loss or injury suffered by any business
establishment or taxpayer as a result of such violation, negligence, abuse,
malfeasance, misfeasance or failure to exercise extraordinary diligence.
Equal Protection
Equality guaranteed under the equal protection clause is equality under the same
conditions and among persons similarly situated; it is equality among equals, not
similarity of treatment of persons who are classified based on substantial differences in
relation to the object to be accomplished.19When things or persons are different in fact
or circumstance, they may be treated in law differently. InVictoriano v. Elizalde Rope
Workers Union,20 this Court declared:
The guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not a guaranty of equality in the
application of the laws upon all citizens of the [S]tate. It is not, therefore, a
requirement, in order to avoid the constitutional prohibition against inequality, that
every man, woman and child should be affected alike by a statute. Equality of
operation of statutes does not mean indiscriminate operation on persons merely
as such, but on persons according to the circumstances surrounding them. It
guarantees equality, not identity of rights. The Constitution does not require
that things which are different in fact be treated in law as though they were
the same. The equal protection clause does not forbid discrimination as to
things that are different. It does not prohibit legislation which is limited
either in the object to which it is directed or by the territory within which it is to
operate.
The equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution allows classification.
Classification in law, as in the other departments of knowledge or practice, is the
grouping of things in speculation or practice because they agree with one
another in certain particulars. A law is not invalid because of simple inequality.
The very idea of classification is that of inequality, so that it goes without saying
that the mere fact of inequality in no manner determines the matter of
constitutionality. All that is required of a valid classification is that it be
reasonable, which means that the classification should be based on
substantial distinctions which make for real differences, that it must be
germane to the purpose of the law; that it must not be limited to existing
conditions only; and that it must apply equally to each member of the
class. This Court has held that the standard is satisfied if the classification or
distinction is based on a reasonable foundation or rational basis and is not
palpably arbitrary.
In the exercise of its power to make classifications for the purpose of enacting
laws over matters within its jurisdiction, the state is recognized as enjoying a
wide range of discretion. It is not necessary that the classification be based on
scientific or marked differences of things or in their relation. Neither is it
necessary that the classification be made with mathematical nicety. Hence,
legislative classification may in many cases properly rest on narrow distinctions,
for the equal protection guaranty does not preclude the legislature from
62

recognizing degrees of evil or harm, and legislation is addressed to evils as they

may appear.21 (emphasis supplied)
The equal protection clause recognizes a valid classification, that is, a classification that
has a reasonable foundation or rational basis and not arbitrary.22 With respect to RA
9335, its expressed public policy is the optimization of the revenue-generation capability
and collection of the BIR and the BOC. 23 Since the subject of the law is the revenuegeneration capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC, the incentives and/or
sanctions provided in the law should logically pertain to the said agencies. Moreover,
the law concerns only the BIR and the BOC because they have the common distinct
primary function of generating revenues for the national government through the
collection of taxes, customs duties, fees and charges.
The BIR performs the following functions:
Sec. 18. The Bureau of Internal Revenue. The Bureau of Internal Revenue,
which shall be headed by and subject to the supervision and control of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who shall be appointed by the President
upon the recommendation of the Secretary [of the DOF], shall have the following
functions:
(1) Assess and collect all taxes, fees and charges and account for all
revenues collected;
(2) Exercise duly delegated police powers for the proper performance of its
functions and duties;
(3) Prevent and prosecute tax evasions and all other illegal economic activities;
(4) Exercise supervision and control over its constituent and subordinate units;
and
(5) Perform such other functions as may be provided by law.24
xxx

xxx

xxx (emphasis supplied)

On the other hand, the BOC has the following functions:

Sec. 23. The Bureau of Customs. The Bureau of Customs which shall be
headed and subject to the management and control of the Commissioner of
Customs, who shall be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of
the Secretary[of the DOF] and hereinafter referred to as Commissioner, shall
have the following functions:
(1) Collect custom duties, taxes and the corresponding fees, charges and
penalties;
(2) Account for all customs revenues collected;
(3) Exercise police authority for the enforcement of tariff and customs laws;
(4) Prevent and suppress smuggling, pilferage and all other economic frauds
within all ports of entry;
(5) Supervise and control exports, imports, foreign mails and the clearance of
vessels and aircrafts in all ports of entry;
(6) Administer all legal requirements that are appropriate;

63

(7) Prevent and prosecute smuggling and other illegal activities in all ports under
its jurisdiction;
(8) Exercise supervision and control over its constituent units;
(9) Perform such other functions as may be provided by law.25
xxx

xxx

xxx (emphasis supplied)

Both the BIR and the BOC are bureaus under the DOF. They principally perform the
special function of being the instrumentalities through which the State exercises one of
its great inherent functions taxation. Indubitably, such substantial distinction is
germane and intimately related to the purpose of the law. Hence, the classification and
treatment accorded to the BIR and the BOC under RA 9335 fully satisfy the demands of
equal protection.
Undue Delegation
Two tests determine the validity of delegation of legislative power: (1) the completeness
test and (2) the sufficient standard test. A law is complete when it sets forth therein the
policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate. 26 It lays down a
sufficient standard when it provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map
out the boundaries of the delegates authority and prevent the delegation from running
riot.27 To be sufficient, the standard must specify the limits of the delegates authority,
announce the legislative policy and identify the conditions under which it is to be
implemented.28
RA 9335 adequately states the policy and standards to guide the President in fixing
revenue targets and the implementing agencies in carrying out the provisions of the law.
Section 2 spells out the policy of the law:
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is the policy of the State to optimize the
revenue-generation capability and collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC) by providing for a system of rewards
and sanctions through the creation of a Rewards and Incentives Fund and a
Revenue Performance Evaluation Board in the above agencies for the purpose
of encouraging their officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets.
Section 4 "canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing" 29 the delegated power
to the President to fix revenue targets:
SEC. 4. Rewards and Incentives Fund. A Rewards and Incentives Fund,
hereinafter referred to as the Fund, is hereby created, to be sourced from the
collection of the BIR and the BOC in excess of their respective revenue targets
of the year, as determined by the Development Budget and Coordinating
Committee (DBCC), in the following percentages:
Excess of Collection of the
Excess the Revenue Targets

Percent (%) of the Excess Collection to

Accrue to the Fund

30% or below

15%

More than 30%

15% of the first 30% plus 20% of the

remaining excess

64

The Fund shall be deemed automatically appropriated the year immediately

following the year when the revenue collection target was exceeded and shall be
released on the same fiscal year.
Revenue targets shall refer to the original estimated revenue collection
expected of the BIR and the BOC for a given fiscal year as stated in the
Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing (BESF) submitted by the
President to Congress. The BIR and the BOC shall submit to the DBCC the
distribution of the agencies revenue targets as allocated among its revenue
districts in the case of the BIR, and the collection districts in the case of the BOC.
xxx

xxx

xxx (emphasis supplied)

Revenue targets are based on the original estimated revenue collection expected
respectively of the BIR and the BOC for a given fiscal year as approved by the DBCC
and stated in the BESF submitted by the President to Congress. 30 Thus, the
determination of revenue targets does not rest solely on the President as it also
undergoes the scrutiny of the DBCC.
On the other hand, Section 7 specifies the limits of the Boards authority and identifies
the conditions under which officials and employees whose revenue collection falls short
of the target by at least 7.5% may be removed from the service:
SEC. 7. Powers and Functions of the Board. The Board in the agency shall
have the following powers and functions:
xxx

xxx

xxx

(b) To set the criteria and procedures for removing from service officials and
employees whose revenue collection falls short of the target by at least
seven and a half percent (7.5%), with due consideration of all relevant
factors affecting the level of collection as provided in the rules and regulations
promulgated under this Act, subject to civil service laws, rules and
regulations and compliance with substantive and procedural due process:
Provided, That the following exemptions shall apply:
1. Where the district or area of responsibility is newly-created, not
exceeding two years in operation, as has no historical record of collection
performance that can be used as basis for evaluation; and
2. Where the revenue or customs official or employee is a recent
transferee in the middle of the period under consideration unless the
transfer was due to nonperformance of revenue targets or potential
nonperformance of revenue targets: Provided, however, That when the
district or area of responsibility covered by revenue or customs officials or
employees has suffered from economic difficulties brought about by
natural calamities orforce majeure or economic causes as may be
determined by the Board, termination shall be considered only after
careful and proper review by the Board.
(c) To terminate personnel in accordance with the criteria adopted in the
preceding paragraph: Provided, That such decision shall be immediately
executory: Provided, further, That the application of the criteria for the
separation of an official or employee from service under this Act shall be
without prejudice to the application of other relevant laws on accountability
of public officers and employees, such as the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards of Public Officers and Employees and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act;
xxx

xxx

xxx (emphasis supplied)

65

Clearly, RA 9335 in no way violates the security of tenure of officials and employees of
the BIR and the BOC. The guarantee of security of tenure only means that an employee
cannot be dismissed from the service for causes other than those provided by law and
only after due process is accorded the employee. 31 In the case of RA 9335, it lays down
a reasonable yardstick for removal (when the revenue collection falls short of the target
by at least 7.5%) with due consideration of all relevant factors affecting the level of
collection. This standard is analogous to inefficiency and incompetence in the
performance of official duties, a ground for disciplinary action under civil service
laws.32 The action for removal is also subject to civil service laws, rules and regulations
and compliance with substantive and procedural due process.
At any rate, this Court has recognized the following as sufficient standards: "public
interest," "justice and equity," "public convenience and welfare" and "simplicity, economy
and welfare."33 In this case, the declared policy of optimization of the revenuegeneration capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC is infused with public
interest.
Separation Of Powers
Section 12 of RA 9335 provides:
SEC. 12. Joint Congressional Oversight Committee. There is hereby created a
Joint Congressional Oversight Committee composed of seven Members from the
Senate and seven Members from the House of Representatives. The Members
from the Senate shall be appointed by the Senate President, with at least two
senators representing the minority. The Members from the House of
Representatives shall be appointed by the Speaker with at least two members
representing the minority. After the Oversight Committee will have approved the
implementing rules and regulations (IRR) it shall thereafter become functus
officio and therefore cease to exist.
The Joint Congressional Oversight Committee in RA 9335 was created for the purpose
of approving the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) formulated by the DOF, DBM,
NEDA, BIR, BOC and CSC. On May 22, 2006, it approved the said IRR. From then on,
it became functus officio and ceased to exist. Hence, the issue of its alleged
encroachment on the executive function of implementing and enforcing the law may be
considered moot and academic.
This notwithstanding, this might be as good a time as any for the Court to confront the
issue of the constitutionality of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created
under RA 9335 (or other similar laws for that matter).
The scholarly discourse of Mr. Justice (now Chief Justice) Puno on the concept of
congressional oversight in Macalintal v. Commission on Elections34 is illuminating:
Concept and bases of congressional oversight
Broadly defined, the power of oversight embraces all activities undertaken
by Congress to enhance its 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 agencies are 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 be intrinsic in the grant of legislative
power itself and integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic
system of government. x x x x x x x x x
66

Over the years, Congress has invoked its oversight power with increased
frequency to check the perceived "exponential accumulation of power" by the
executive branch. By the beginning of the 20 th century, Congress has delegated
an enormous amount of legislative authority to the executive branch and the
administrative agencies. Congress, thus, uses its oversight power to make sure
that the administrative agencies perform their functions within the authority
delegated to them. x x x x x x x x x
Categories of congressional oversight functions
The acts done by Congress purportedly in the exercise of its oversight powers
may be divided into three categories,
namely: scrutiny, investigation and supervision.
a. Scrutiny
Congressional scrutiny implies a lesser intensity and continuity of attention
to administrative operations. Its primary purpose is to determine economy
and efficiency of the operation of government activities. In the exercise of
legislative scrutiny, Congress may request information and report from the
other branches of government. It can give recommendations or pass
resolutions for consideration of the agency involved.
xxx

xxx

xxx

b. Congressional investigation
While congressional scrutiny is regarded as a passive process of looking
at the facts that are readily available, congressional investigation involves
a more intense digging of facts. The power of Congress to conduct
investigation is recognized by the 1987 Constitution under section 21,
Article VI, xxx
xxx
xxx
c. Legislative supervision
The third and most encompassing form by which Congress exercises its
oversight power is thru legislative supervision. "Supervision" connotes a
continuing and informed awareness on the part of a congressional committee
regarding executive operations in a given administrative area. While both
congressional scrutiny and investigation involve inquiry into past executive
branch actions in order to influence future executive branch
performance, congressional supervision allows Congress to scrutinize the
exercise of delegated law-making authority, and permits Congress to retain part
of that delegated authority.
Congress exercises supervision over the executive agencies through its veto
power. It typically utilizes veto provisions when granting the President or an
executive agency the power to promulgate regulations with the force of law.
These provisions require the President or an agency to present the proposed
regulations to Congress, which retains a "right" to approve or disapprove any
regulation before it takes effect. Such legislative veto provisions usually provide
that a proposed regulation will become a law after the expiration of a certain
period of time, only if Congress does not affirmatively disapprove of the
regulation in the meantime. Less frequently, the statute provides that a proposed
regulation will become law if Congress affirmatively approves it.
Supporters of legislative veto stress that it is necessary to maintain the balance
of power between the legislative and the executive branches of government as it
offers lawmakers a way to delegate vast power to the executive branch or to
independent agencies while retaining the option to cancel particular exercise of
67

such power without having to pass new legislation or to repeal existing law. They
contend that this arrangement promotes democratic accountability as it provides
legislative check on the activities of unelected administrative agencies. One
proponent thus explains:
It is too late to debate the merits of this delegation policy: the policy is too
deeply embedded in our law and practice. It suffices to say that the
complexities of modern government have often led Congress-whether by
actual or perceived necessity- to legislate by declaring broad policy goals
and general statutory standards, leaving the choice of policy options to the
discretion of an executive officer. Congress articulates legislative aims, but
leaves their implementation to the judgment of parties who may or may
not have participated in or agreed with the development of those aims.
Consequently, absent safeguards, in many instances the reverse of our
constitutional scheme could be effected: Congress proposes, the
Executive disposes. One safeguard, of course, is the legislative power to
enact new legislation or to change existing law. But without some means
of overseeing post enactment activities of the executive branch, Congress
would be unable to determine whether its policies have been implemented
in accordance with legislative intent and thus whether legislative
intervention is appropriate.
Its opponents, however, criticize the legislative veto as undue encroachment
upon the executive prerogatives. They urge that any post-enactment
measures undertaken by the legislative branch should be limited to
scrutiny and investigation; any measure beyond that would undermine the
separation of powers guaranteed by the Constitution. They contend that
legislative veto constitutes an impermissible evasion of the Presidents veto
authority and intrusion into the powers vested in the executive or judicial
branches of government. Proponents counter that legislative veto enhances
separation of powers as it prevents the executive branch and independent
agencies from accumulating too much power. They submit that reporting
requirements and congressional committee investigations allow Congress to
scrutinize only the exercise of delegated law-making authority. They do not allow
Congress to review executive proposals before they take effect and they do not
afford the opportunity for ongoing and binding expressions of congressional
intent. In contrast, legislative veto permits Congress to participate prospectively
in the approval or disapproval of "subordinate law" or those enacted by the
executive branch pursuant to a delegation of authority by Congress. They further
argue that legislative veto "is a necessary response by Congress to the accretion
of policy control by forces outside its chambers." In an era of delegated authority,
they point out that legislative veto "is the most efficient means Congress has yet
devised to retain control over the evolution and implementation of its policy as
declared by statute."
In Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, the U.S. Supreme Court
resolved the validity of legislative veto provisions. The case arose from the
order of the immigration judge suspending the deportation of Chadha pursuant to
244(c)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The United States House of
Representatives passed a resolution vetoing the suspension pursuant to 244(c)
(2) authorizing either House of Congress, by resolution, to invalidate the decision
of the executive branch to allow a particular deportable alien to remain in the
United States. The immigration judge reopened the deportation proceedings to
implement the House order and the alien was ordered deported. The Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissed the aliens appeal, holding that it had no power to
declare unconstitutional an act of Congress. The United States Court of Appeals
for Ninth Circuit held that the House was without constitutional authority to order
the aliens deportation and that 244(c)(2) violated the constitutional doctrine on
separation of powers.
68

On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court declared 244(c)(2) unconstitutional. But

the Court shied away from the issue of separation of powers and instead
held that the provision violates the presentment clause and bicameralism. It held
that the one-house veto was essentially legislative in purpose and effect. As
such, it is subject to the procedures set out in Article I of the Constitution
requiring the passage by a majority of both Houses and presentment to the
President. x x x x x x x x x
Two weeks after the Chadha decision, the Court upheld, in memorandum
decision, two lower court decisions invalidating the legislative veto provisions in
the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 and the Federal Trade Commission
Improvement Act of 1980. Following this precedence, lower courts invalidated
statutes containing legislative veto provisions although some of these provisions
required the approval of both Houses of Congress and thus met the
bicameralism requirement of Article I. Indeed, some of these veto provisions
were not even exercised.35(emphasis supplied)
In Macalintal, given the concept and configuration of the power of congressional
oversight and considering the nature and powers of a constitutional body like the
Commission on Elections, the Court struck down the provision in RA 9189 (The
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003) creating a Joint Congressional Committee. The
committee was tasked not only to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the said
law but also to review, revise, amend and approve the IRR promulgated by the
Commission on Elections. The Court held that these functions infringed on the
constitutional independence of the Commission on Elections. 36
With this backdrop, it is clear that congressional oversight is not unconstitutional per se,
meaning, it neither necessarily constitutes an encroachment on the executive power to
implement laws nor undermines the constitutional separation of powers. Rather, it is
integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of government. It
may in fact even enhance the separation of powers as it prevents 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 basic and related constraints on Congress. 37 It
may not vest itself, any of its committees or its members with either executive or judicial
power.38 And, when it exercises its legislative power, it must follow the "single, finely
wrought and exhaustively considered, procedures" specified under the
Constitution,39 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, congressional oversight must be confined to the
following:
(1) scrutiny based primarily on Congress power of appropriation and the budget
hearings conducted in connection with it, its power to ask heads of departments
to appear before and be heard by either of its Houses on any matter pertaining to
their departments and its power of confirmation 40 and
(2) investigation and monitoring41 of the implementation of laws pursuant to the
power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. 42
Any action or step beyond that will undermine the separation of powers guaranteed by
the Constitution. Legislative vetoes fall in this class.
Legislative veto is a statutory provision requiring the President or an administrative
agency to present the proposed implementing rules and regulations of a law to
Congress which, by itself or through a committee formed by it, retains a "right" or
"power" to approve or disapprove such regulations before they take effect. As such, a
legislative veto in the form of a congressional oversight committee is in the form of an
69

inward-turning delegation designed to attach a congressional leash (other than through

scrutiny and investigation) to an agency to which Congress has by law initially
delegated broad powers.43 It radically changes the design or structure of the
Constitutions diagram of power as it entrusts to Congress a direct role in enforcing,
applying or implementing its own laws.44
Congress has two options when enacting legislation to define national policy within the
broad horizons of its legislative competence.45 It can itself formulate the details or it can
assign to the executive branch the responsibility for making necessary managerial
decisions in conformity with those standards. 46 In the latter case, the law must be
complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves the hands of the
legislature.47 Thus, what is left for the executive branch or the concerned administrative
agency when it formulates rules and regulations implementing the law is to fill up details
(supplementary rule-making) or ascertain facts necessary to bring the law into actual
operation (contingent rule-making).48
Administrative regulations enacted by administrative agencies to implement and
interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce have the force of law and are
entitled to respect.49 Such rules and regulations partake of the nature of a statute 50 and
are just as binding as if they have been written in the statute itself. As such, they have
the force and effect of law and enjoy the presumption of constitutionality and legality
until they are set aside with finality in an appropriate case by a competent
court.51 Congress, in the guise of assuming the role of an overseer, may not pass upon
their legality by subjecting them to its stamp of approval without disturbing the
calculated balance of powers established by the Constitution. In exercising discretion to
approve or disapprove the IRR based on a determination of whether or not they
conformed with the provisions of RA 9335, Congress arrogated judicial power unto
itself, a power exclusively vested in this Court by the Constitution.
Considered Opinion of
Mr. Justice Dante O. Tinga
Moreover, the requirement that the implementing rules of a law be subjected to approval
by Congress as a condition for their effectivity violates the cardinal constitutional
principles of bicameralism and the rule on presentment. 52
Section 1, Article VI of the Constitution states:
Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the
Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on
initiative and referendum. (emphasis supplied)
Legislative power (or the power to propose, enact, amend and repeal laws) 53 is vested
in Congress which consists of two chambers, the Senate and the House of
Representatives. A valid exercise of legislative power requires the act of both chambers.
Corrollarily, it can be exercised neither solely by one of the two chambers nor by a
committee of either or both chambers. Thus, assuming the validity of a legislative veto,
both a single-chamber legislative veto and a congressional committee legislative veto
are invalid.
Additionally, Section 27(1), Article VI of the Constitution provides:
Section 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a
law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it,
otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House
where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and
proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the
Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with
the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and
70

if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law.
In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays,
and the names of the members voting for or against shall be entered in its
Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where
it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall
become a law as if he had signed it. (emphasis supplied)
Every bill passed by Congress must be presented to the President for approval or veto.
In the absence of presentment to the President, no bill passed by Congress can
become a law. In this sense, law-making under the Constitution is a joint act of the
Legislature and of the Executive. Assuming that legislative veto is a valid legislative act
with the force of law, it cannot take effect without such presentment even if approved by
both chambers of Congress.
In sum, two steps are required before a bill becomes a law. First, it must be approved by
both Houses of Congress.54 Second, it must be presented to and approved by the
President.55 As summarized by Justice Isagani Cruz56 and Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.57,
the following is the procedure for the approval of bills:
A bill is introduced by any member of the House of Representatives or the
Senate except for some measures that must originate only in the former
chamber.
The first reading involves only a reading of the number and title of the measure
and its referral by the Senate President or the Speaker to the proper committee
for study.
The bill may be "killed" in the committee or it may be recommended for approval,
with or without amendments, sometimes after public hearings are first held
thereon. If there are other bills of the same nature or purpose, they may all be
consolidated into one bill under common authorship or as a committee bill.
Once reported out, the bill shall be calendared for second reading. It is at this
stage that the bill is read in its entirety, scrutinized, debated upon and amended
when desired. The second reading is the most important stage in the passage of
a bill.
The bill as approved on second reading is printed in its final form and copies
thereof are distributed at least three days before the third reading. On the third
reading, the members merely register their votes and explain them if they are
allowed by the rules. No further debate is allowed.
Once the bill passes third reading, it is sent to the other chamber, where it will
also undergo the three readings. If there are differences between the versions
approved by the two chambers, a conference committee 58 representing both
Houses will draft a compromise measure that if ratified by the Senate and the
House of Representatives will then be submitted to the President for his
consideration.
The bill is enrolled when printed as finally approved by the Congress, thereafter
authenticated with the signatures of the Senate President, the Speaker, and the
Secretaries of their respective chambers59
The Presidents role in law-making.
The final step is submission to the President for approval. Once approved, it
takes effect as law after the required publication. 60
Where Congress delegates the formulation of rules to implement the law it has enacted
pursuant to sufficient standards established in the said law, the law must be complete in
71

all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves the hands of the legislature. And it
may be deemed to have left the hands of the legislature when it becomes effective
because it is only upon effectivity of the statute that legal rights and obligations become
available to those entitled by the language of the statute. Subject to the indispensable
requisite of publication under the due process clause, 61 the determination as to when a
law takes effect is wholly the prerogative of Congress. 62 As such, it is only upon its
effectivity that a law may be executed and the executive branch acquires the duties and
powers to execute the said law. Before that point, the role of the executive branch,
particularly of the President, is limited to approving or vetoing the law.63
From the moment the law becomes effective, any provision of law that empowers
Congress or any of its members to play any role in the implementation or enforcement
of the law violates the principle of separation of powers and is thus unconstitutional.
Under this principle, a provision that requires Congress or its members to approve the
implementing rules of a law after it has already taken effect shall be unconstitutional, as
is a provision that allows Congress or its members to overturn any directive or ruling
made by the members of the executive branch charged with the implementation of the
law.
Following this rationale, Section 12 of RA 9335 should be struck down as
unconstitutional. While there may be similar provisions of other laws that may be
invalidated for failure to pass this standard, the Court refrains from invalidating them
wholesale but will do so at the proper time when an appropriate case assailing those
provisions is brought before us.64
The next question to be resolved is: what is the effect of the unconstitutionality of
Section 12 of RA 9335 on the other provisions of the law? Will it render the entire law
unconstitutional? No.
Section 13 of RA 9335 provides:
SEC. 13. Separability Clause. If any provision of this Act is declared invalid by
a competent court, the remainder of this Act or any provision not affected by such
declaration of invalidity shall remain in force and effect.
In Tatad v. Secretary of the Department of Energy,65 the Court laid down the following
rules:
The general rule is that where part of a statute is void as repugnant to the
Constitution, while another part is valid, the valid portion, if separable from the
invalid, may stand and be enforced. The presence of a separability clause in a
statute creates the presumption that the legislature intended separability, rather
than complete nullity of the statute. To justify this result, the valid portion must be
so far independent of the invalid portion that it is fair to presume that the
legislature would have enacted it by itself if it had supposed that it could not
constitutionally enact the other. Enough must remain to make a complete,
intelligible and valid statute, which carries out the legislative intent. x x x
The exception to the general rule is that when the parts of a statute are so
mutually dependent and connected, as conditions, considerations, inducements,
or compensations for each other, as to warrant a belief that the legislature
intended them as a whole, the nullity of one part will vitiate the rest. In making the
parts of the statute dependent, conditional, or connected with one another, the
legislature intended the statute to be carried out as a whole and would not have
enacted it if one part is void, in which case if some parts are unconstitutional, all
the other provisions thus dependent, conditional, or connected must fall with
them.
The separability clause of RA 9335 reveals the intention of the legislature to isolate and
detach any invalid provision from the other provisions so that the latter may continue in
72

force and effect. The valid portions can stand independently of the invalid section.
Without Section 12, the remaining provisions still constitute a complete, intelligible and
valid law which carries out the legislative intent to optimize the revenue-generation
capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC by providing for a system of rewards
and sanctions through the Rewards and Incentives Fund and a Revenue Performance
Evaluation Board.
To be effective, administrative rules and regulations must be published in full if their
purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. The IRR
of RA 9335 were published on May 30, 2006 in two newspapers of general
circulation66 and became effective 15 days thereafter.67 Until and unless the contrary is
shown, the IRR are presumed valid and effective even without the approval of the Joint
Congressional Oversight Committee.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Section 12 of RA 9335
creating a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee to approve the implementing rules
and regulations of the law is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and
therefore NULL and VOID. The constitutionality of the remaining provisions of RA 9335
is UPHELD. Pursuant to Section 13 of RA 9335, the rest of the provisions remain in
force and effect.
SO ORDERED.

73

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. 115455 October 30, 1995

ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, petitioner,
vs.
THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE and THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, respondents.
G.R. No. 115525 October 30, 1995
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 October 30, 1995
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 October 30, 1995
PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE, INC.; EGP PUBLISHING CO., INC.; KAMAHALAN 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 October 30, 1995
CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATIONS, INC., (CREBA), petitioner,
vs.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent.
G.R. No. 115781 October 30, 1995
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., and 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 October 30, 1995

74

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner,

vs.
THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents.
G.R. No. 115873 October 30, 1995
COOPERATIVE UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
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 October 30, 1995
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.
RESOLUTION

MENDOZA, J.:
These are motions seeking reconsideration of our decision dismissing the petitions filed in these
cases for the declaration of unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 7716, otherwise known as the Expanded
Value-Added Tax Law. The motions, of which there are 10 in all, have been filed by the several
petitioners in these cases, with the exception of the Philippine Educational Publishers Association,
Inc. and the Association of Philippine Booksellers, petitioners in G.R. No. 115931.
The Solicitor General, representing the respondents, filed a consolidated comment, to which the
Philippine Airlines, Inc., petitioner in G.R. No. 115852, and the Philippine Press Institute, Inc.,
petitioner in G.R. No. 115544, and Juan T. David, petitioner in G.R. No. 115525, each filed a reply. In
turn the Solicitor General filed on June 1, 1995 a rejoinder to the PPI's reply.
On June 27, 1995 the matter was submitted for resolution.
I. Power of the Senate to propose amendments to revenue bills. Some of the petitioners (Tolentino,
Kilosbayan, Inc., Philippine Airlines (PAL), Roco, and Chamber of Real Estate and Builders
Association (CREBA)) reiterate previous claims made by them that R.A. No. 7716 did not "originate
exclusively" in the House of Representatives as required by Art. VI, 24 of the Constitution. Although
they admit that H. No. 11197 was filed in the House of Representatives where it passed three
readings and that afterward it was sent to the Senate where after first reading it was referred to the
Senate Ways and Means Committee, they complain that the Senate did not pass it on second and
third readings. Instead what the Senate did was to pass its own version (S. No. 1630) which it
approved on May 24, 1994. Petitioner Tolentino adds that what the Senate committee should have
done was to amend H. No. 11197 by striking out the text of the bill and substituting it with the text of
S. No. 1630. That way, it is said, "the bill remains a House bill and the Senate version just becomes
the text (only the text) of the House bill."
The contention has no merit.
The enactment of S. No. 1630 is not the only instance in which the Senate proposed an amendment
to a House revenue bill by enacting its own version of a revenue bill. On at least two occasions
during the Eighth Congress, the Senate passed its own version of revenue bills, which, in
consolidation with House bills earlier passed, became the enrolled bills. These were:

75

R.A. No. 7369 (AN ACT TO AMEND THE OMNIBUS INVESTMENTS CODE OF 1987 BY
EXTENDING FROM FIVE (5) YEARS TO TEN YEARS THE PERIOD FOR TAX AND DUTY
EXEMPTION AND TAX CREDIT ON CAPITAL EQUIPMENT) which was approved by the President
on April 10, 1992. This Act is actually a consolidation of H. No. 34254, which was approved by the
House on January 29, 1992, and S. No. 1920, which was approved by the Senate on February 3,
1992.
R.A. No. 7549 (AN ACT GRANTING TAX EXEMPTIONS TO WHOEVER SHALL GIVE REWARD TO
ANY FILIPINO ATHLETE WINNING A MEDAL IN OLYMPIC GAMES) which was approved by the
President on May 22, 1992. This Act is a consolidation of H. No. 22232, which was approved by the
House of Representatives on August 2, 1989, and S. No. 807, which was approved by the Senate on
October 21, 1991.
On the other hand, the Ninth Congress passed revenue laws which were also the result of the
consolidation of House and Senate bills. These are the following, with indications of the dates on
which the laws were approved by the President and dates the separate bills of the two chambers of
Congress were respectively passed:
1. R.A. NO. 7642
AN ACT INCREASING THE PENALTIES FOR TAX EVASION, AMENDING FOR
THIS PURPOSE THE PERTINENT SECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE (December 28, 1992).
House Bill No. 2165, October 5, 1992
Senate Bill No. 32, December 7, 1992
2. R.A. NO. 7643
AN ACT TO EMPOWER THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE TO
REQUIRE THE PAYMENT OF THE VALUE-ADDED TAX EVERY MONTH AND TO
ALLOW LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS TO SHARE IN VAT REVENUE, AMENDING
FOR THIS PURPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE (December 28, 1992)
House Bill No. 1503, September 3, 1992
Senate Bill No. 968, December 7, 1992
3. R.A. NO. 7646
AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE TO
PRESCRIBE THE PLACE FOR PAYMENT OF INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES BY
LARGE TAXPAYERS, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE CERTAIN PROVISIONS
OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED (February 24,
1993)
House Bill No. 1470, October 20, 1992
Senate Bill No. 35, November 19, 1992
4. R.A. NO. 7649
AN ACT REQUIRING THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS, INSTRUMENTALITIES OR AGENCIES INCLUDING
GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS (GOCCS) TO
DEDUCT AND WITHHOLD THE VALUE-ADDED TAX DUE AT THE RATE OF
THREE PERCENT (3%) ON GROSS PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS

76

AND SIX PERCENT (6%) ON GROSS RECEIPTS FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY

CONTRACTORS (April 6, 1993)
House Bill No. 5260, January 26, 1993
Senate Bill No. 1141, March 30, 1993
5. R.A. NO. 7656
AN ACT REQUIRING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED
CORPORATIONS TO DECLARE DIVIDENDS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS TO
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (November 9,
1993)
House Bill No. 11024, November 3, 1993
Senate Bill No. 1168, November 3, 1993
6. R.A. NO. 7660
AN ACT RATIONALIZING FURTHER THE STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION
OF THE DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED,
ALLOCATING FUNDS FOR SPECIFIC PROGRAMS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES (December 23, 1993)
House Bill No. 7789, May 31, 1993
Senate Bill No. 1330, November 18, 1993
7. R.A. NO. 7717
AN ACT IMPOSING A TAX ON THE SALE, BARTER OR EXCHANGE OF SHARES
OF STOCK LISTED AND TRADED THROUGH THE LOCAL STOCK EXCHANGE
OR THROUGH INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE
THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED, BY INSERTING A
NEW SECTION AND REPEALING CERTAIN SUBSECTIONS THEREOF (May 5,
1994)
House Bill No. 9187, November 3, 1993
Senate Bill No. 1127, March 23, 1994
Thus, the enactment of S. No. 1630 is not the only instance in which the Senate, in the exercise of
its power to propose amendments to bills required to originate in the House, passed its own version
of a House revenue measure. It is noteworthy that, in the particular case of S. No. 1630, petitioners
Tolentino and Roco, as members of the Senate, voted to approve it on second and third readings.
On the other hand, amendment by substitution, in the manner urged by petitioner Tolentino,
concerns a mere matter of form. Petitioner has not shown what substantial difference it would make
if, as the Senate actually did in this case, a separate bill like S. No. 1630 is instead enacted as a
substitute measure, "taking into Consideration . . . H.B. 11197."
Indeed, so far as pertinent, the Rules of the Senate only provide:
RULE XXIX
AMENDMENTS
xxx xxx xxx

77

68. Not more than one amendment to the original amendment shall be considered.
No amendment by substitution shall be entertained unless the text thereof is
submitted in writing.
Any of said amendments may be withdrawn before a vote is taken thereon.
69. No amendment which seeks the inclusion of a legislative provision foreign to the
subject matter of a bill (rider) shall be entertained.
xxx xxx xxx
70-A. A bill or resolution shall not be amended by substituting it with another which
covers a subject distinct from that proposed in the original bill or resolution.
(emphasis added).
Nor is there merit in petitioners' contention that, with regard to revenue bills, the Philippine Senate
possesses less power than the U.S. Senate because of textual differences between constitutional
provisions giving them the power to propose or concur with amendments.
Art. I, 7, cl. 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads:
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the
Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
Art. VI, 24 of our Constitution reads:
All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt,
bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.
The addition of the word "exclusively" in the Philippine Constitution and the decision to drop the
phrase "as on other Bills" in the American version, according to petitioners, shows the intention of
the framers of our Constitution to restrict the Senate's power to propose amendments to revenue
bills. Petitioner Tolentino contends that the word "exclusively" was inserted to modify "originate" and
"the words 'as in any other bills' (sic) were eliminated so as to show that these bills were not to be
like other bills but must be treated as a special kind."
The history of this provision does not support this contention. The supposed indicia of constitutional
intent are nothing but the relics of an unsuccessful attempt to limit the power of the Senate. It will be
recalled that the 1935 Constitution originally provided for a unicameral National Assembly. When it
was decided in 1939 to change to a bicameral legislature, it became necessary to provide for the
procedure for lawmaking by the Senate and the House of Representatives. The work of proposing
amendments to the Constitution was done by the National Assembly, acting as a constituent
assembly, some of whose members, jealous of preserving the Assembly's lawmaking powers,
sought to curtail the powers of the proposed Senate. Accordingly they proposed the following
provision:
All bills appropriating public funds, revenue or tariff bills, bills of local application, and
private bills shall originate exclusively in the Assembly, but the Senate may propose
or concur with amendments. In case of disapproval by the Senate of any such bills,
the Assembly may repass the same by a two-thirds vote of all its members, and
thereupon, the bill so repassed shall be deemed enacted and may be submitted to
the President for corresponding action. In the event that the Senate should fail to
finally act on any such bills, the Assembly may, after thirty days from the opening of
the next regular session of the same legislative term, reapprove the same with a vote
of two-thirds of all the members of the Assembly. And upon such reapproval, the bill
shall be deemed enacted and may be submitted to the President for corresponding
action.

78

The special committee on the revision of laws of the Second National Assembly vetoed the proposal.
It deleted everything after the first sentence. As rewritten, the proposal was approved by the National
Assembly and embodied in Resolution No. 38, as amended by Resolution No. 73. (J. ARUEGO,
KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTION 65-66 (1950)). The proposed amendment was submitted to the
people and ratified by them in the elections held on June 18, 1940.
This is the history of Art. VI, 18 (2) of the 1935 Constitution, from which Art. VI, 24 of the present
Constitution was derived. It explains why the word "exclusively" was added to the American text from
which the framers of the Philippine Constitution borrowed and why the phrase "as on other Bills" was
not copied. Considering the defeat of the proposal, the power of the Senate to propose amendments
must be understood to be full, plenary and complete "as on other Bills." Thus, because revenue bills
are required to originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, the Senate cannot enact
revenue measures of its own without such bills. After a revenue bill is passed and sent over to it by
the House, however, the Senate certainly can pass its own version on the same subject matter. This
follows from the coequality of the two chambers of Congress.
That this is also the understanding of book authors of the scope of the Senate's power to concur is
clear from the following commentaries:
The power of the Senate to propose or concur with amendments is apparently
without restriction. It would seem that by virtue of this power, the Senate can
practically re-write a bill required to come from the House and leave only a trace of
the original bill. For example, a general revenue bill passed by the lower house of the
United States Congress contained provisions for the imposition of an inheritance tax .
This was changed by the Senate into a corporation tax. The amending authority of
the Senate was declared by the United States Supreme Court to be sufficiently broad
to enable it to make the alteration. [Flint v. Stone Tracy Company, 220 U.S. 107, 55
L. ed. 389].
(L. TAADA AND F. CARREON, POLITICAL LAW OF THE PHILIPPINES 247
(1961))
The above-mentioned bills are supposed to be initiated by the House of
Representatives because it is more numerous in membership and therefore also
more representative of the people. Moreover, its members are presumed to be more
familiar with the needs of the country in regard to the enactment of the legislation
involved.
The Senate is, however, allowed much leeway in the exercise of its power to propose
or concur with amendments to the bills initiated by the House of Representatives.
Thus, in one case, a bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives was
changed by the Senate to make a proposed inheritance tax a corporation tax. It is
also accepted practice for the Senate to introduce what is known as an amendment
by substitution, which may entirely replace the bill initiated in the House of
Representatives.
(I. CRUZ, PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW 144-145 (1993)).
In sum, while Art. VI, 24 provides that all appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing
increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills must "originate exclusively in
the House of Representatives," it also adds, "but the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments." In the exercise of this power, the Senate may propose an entirely new bill as a
substitute measure. As petitioner Tolentino states in a high school text, a committee to which a bill is
referred may do any of the following:
(1) to endorse the bill without changes; (2) to make changes in the bill omitting or
adding sections or altering its language; (3) to make and endorse an entirely new bill
as a substitute, in which case it will be known as a committee bill; or (4) to make no
report at all.

79

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

To except from this procedure the amendment of bills which are required to originate in the House by
prescribing that the number of the House bill and its other parts up to the enacting clause must be
preserved although the text of the Senate amendment may be incorporated in place of the original
body of the bill is to insist on a mere technicality. At any rate there is no rule prescribing this form. S.
No. 1630, as a substitute measure, is therefore as much an amendment of H. No. 11197 as any
which the Senate could have made.
II. S. No. 1630 a mere amendment of H. No. 11197. Petitioners' basic error is that they assume that
S. No. 1630 is an independent and distinct bill. Hence their repeated references to its certification
that it was passed by the Senate "in substitution of S.B. No. 1129, taking into consideration P.S. Res.
No. 734 and H.B. No. 11197," implying that there is something substantially different between the
reference to S. No. 1129 and the reference to H. No. 11197. From this premise, they conclude that
R.A. No. 7716 originated both in the House and in the Senate and that it is the product of two "halfbaked bills because neither H. No. 11197 nor S. No. 1630 was passed by both houses of Congress."
In point of fact, in several instances the provisions of S. No. 1630, clearly appear to be mere
amendments of the corresponding provisions of H. No. 11197. The very tabular comparison of the
provisions of H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630 attached as Supplement A to the basic petition of
petitioner Tolentino, while showing differences between the two bills, at the same time indicates that
the provisions of the Senate bill were precisely intended to be amendments to the House bill.
Without H. No. 11197, the Senate could not have enacted S. No. 1630. Because the Senate bill was
a mere amendment of the House bill, H. No. 11197 in its original form did not have to pass the
Senate on second and three readings. It was enough that after it was passed on first reading it was
referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. Neither was it required that S. No. 1630 be
passed by the House of Representatives before the two bills could be referred to the Conference
Committee.
There is legislative precedent for what was done in the case of H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630. When
the House bill and Senate bill, which became R.A. No. 1405 (Act prohibiting the disclosure of bank
deposits), were referred to a conference committee, the question was raised whether the two bills
could be the subject of such conference, considering that the bill from one house had not been
passed by the other and vice versa. As Congressman Duran put the question:
MR. DURAN. Therefore, I raise this question of order as to procedure: If a House bill
is passed by the House but not passed by the Senate, and a Senate bill of a similar
nature is passed in the Senate but never passed in the House, can the two bills be
the subject of a conference, and can a law be enacted from these two bills? I
understand that the Senate bill in this particular instance does not refer to
investments in government securities, whereas the bill in the House, which was
introduced by the Speaker, covers two subject matters: not only investigation of
deposits in banks but also investigation of investments in government securities.
Now, since the two bills differ in their subject matter, I believe that no law can be
enacted.
Ruling on the point of order raised, the chair (Speaker Jose B. Laurel, Jr.) said:
THE SPEAKER. The report of the conference committee is in order. It is precisely in
cases like this where a conference should be had. If the House bill had been
approved by the Senate, there would have been no need of a conference; but
precisely because the Senate passed another bill on the same subject matter, the
conference committee had to be created, and we are now considering the report of
that committee.
(2 CONG. REC. NO. 13, July 27, 1955, pp. 3841-42 (emphasis added))
III. The President's certification. The fallacy in thinking that H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630 are distinct
and unrelated measures also accounts for the petitioners' (Kilosbayan's and PAL's) contention that

80

because the President separately certified to the need for the immediate enactment of these
measures, his certification was ineffectual and void. The certification had to be made of the version
of the same revenue bill which at the momentwas being considered. Otherwise, to follow petitioners'
theory, it would be necessary for the President to certify as many bills as are presented in a house of
Congress even though the bills are merely versions of the bill he has already certified. It is enough
that he certifies the bill which, at the time he makes the certification, is under consideration. Since on
March 22, 1994 the Senate was considering S. No. 1630, it was that bill which had to be certified.
For that matter on June 1, 1993 the President had earlier certified H. No. 9210 for immediate
enactment because it was the one which at that time was being considered by the House. This bill
was later substituted, together with other bills, by H. No. 11197.
As to what Presidential certification can accomplish, we have already explained in the main decision
that the phrase "except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment,
etc." in Art. VI, 26 (2) qualifies not only the requirement that "printed copies [of a bill] in its final form
[must be] distributed to the members three days before its passage" but also the requirement that
before a bill can become a law it must have passed "three readings on separate days." There is not
only textual support for such construction but historical basis as well.
Art. VI, 21 (2) of the 1935 Constitution originally provided:
(2) No bill shall be passed by either House unless it shall have been printed and
copies thereof in its final form furnished its Members at least three calendar days
prior to its passage, except when the President shall have certified to the necessity of
its immediate enactment. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereof shall
be allowed and the question upon its passage shall be taken immediately thereafter,
and the yeas and nays entered on the Journal.
When the 1973 Constitution was adopted, it was provided in Art. VIII, 19 (2):
(2) No bill shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days,
and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to the Members
three days before its passage, except when the Prime Minister certifies to the
necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon
the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote
thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the
Journal.
This provision of the 1973 document, with slight modification, was adopted in Art. VI, 26 (2) of the
present Constitution, thus:
(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three
readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been
distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President
certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or
emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed,
and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and
the yeasand nays entered in the Journal.
The exception is based on the prudential consideration that if in all cases three readings on separate
days are required and a bill has to be printed in final form before it can be passed, the need for a law
may be rendered academic by the occurrence of the very emergency or public calamity which it is
meant to address.
Petitioners further contend that a "growing budget deficit" is not an emergency, especially in a
country like the Philippines where budget deficit is a chronic condition. Even if this were the case, an
enormous budget deficit does not make the need for R.A. No. 7716 any less urgent or the situation
calling for its enactment any less an emergency.
Apparently, the members of the Senate (including some of the petitioners in these cases) believed
that there was an urgent need for consideration of S. No. 1630, because they responded to the call

81

of the President by voting on the bill on second and third readings on the same day. While the
judicial department is not bound by the Senate's acceptance of the President's certification, the
respect due coequal departments of the government in matters committed to them by the
Constitution and the absence of a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion caution a stay of the
judicial hand.
At any rate, we are satisfied that S. No. 1630 received thorough consideration in the Senate where it
was discussed for six days. Only its distribution in advance in its final printed form was actually
dispensed with by holding the voting on second and third readings on the same day (March 24,
1994). Otherwise, sufficient time between the submission of the bill on February 8, 1994 on second
reading and its approval on March 24, 1994 elapsed before it was finally voted on by the Senate on
third reading.
The purpose for which three readings on separate days is required is said to be two-fold: (1) to
inform the members of Congress of what they must vote on and (2) to give them notice that a
measure is progressing through the enacting process, thus enabling them and others interested in
the measure to prepare their positions with reference to it. (1 J. G. SUTHERLAND, STATUTES AND
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION 10.04, p. 282 (1972)). These purposes were substantially
achieved in the case of R.A. No. 7716.
IV. Power of Conference Committee. It is contended (principally by Kilosbayan, Inc. and the
Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity and Nationalism, Inc. (MABINI)) that in violation of
the constitutional policy of full public disclosure and the people's right to know (Art. II, 28 and Art. III,
7) the Conference Committee met for two days in executive session with only the conferees
present.
As pointed out in our main decision, even in the United States it was customary to hold such
sessions with only the conferees and their staffs in attendance and it was only in 1975 when a new
rule was adopted requiring open sessions. Unlike its American counterpart, the Philippine Congress
has not adopted a rule prescribing open hearings for conference committees.
It is nevertheless claimed that in the United States, before the adoption of the rule in 1975, at least
staff members were present. These were staff members of the Senators and Congressmen,
however, who may be presumed to be their confidential men, not stenographers as in this case who
on the last two days of the conference were excluded. There is no showing that the conferees
themselves did not take notes of their proceedings so as to give petitioner Kilosbayan basis for
claiming that even in secret diplomatic negotiations involving state interests, conferees keep notes of
their meetings. Above all, the public's right to know was fully served because the Conference
Committee in this case submitted a report showing the changes made on the differing versions of
the House and the Senate.
Petitioners cite the rules of both houses which provide that conference committee reports must
contain "a detailed, sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in or other amendments." These
changes are shown in the bill attached to the Conference Committee Report. The members of both
houses could thus ascertain what changes had been made in the original bills without the need of a
statement detailing the changes.
The same question now presented was raised when the bill which became R.A. No. 1400 (Land
Reform Act of 1955) was reported by the Conference Committee. Congressman Bengzon raised a
point of order. He said:
MR. BENGZON. My point of order is that it is out of order to consider the report of
the conference committee regarding House Bill No. 2557 by reason of the provision
of Section 11, Article XII, of the Rules of this House which provides specifically that
the conference report must be accompanied by a detailed statement of the effects of
the amendment on the bill of the House. This conference committee report is not
accompanied by that detailed statement, Mr. Speaker. Therefore it is out of order to
consider it.
Petitioner Tolentino, then the Majority Floor Leader, answered:

82

MR. TOLENTINO. Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say a few words in connection
with the point of order raised by the gentleman from Pangasinan.
There is no question about the provision of the Rule cited by the gentleman from
Pangasinan, butthis provision applies to those cases where only portions of the bill
have been amended. In this case before us an entire bill is presented; therefore, it
can be easily seen from the reading of the bill what the provisions are. Besides, this
procedure has been an established practice.
After some interruption, he continued:
MR. TOLENTINO. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, we have to look into the reason for
the provisions of the Rules, and the reason for the requirement in the provision cited
by the gentleman from Pangasinan is when there are only certain words or phrases
inserted in or deleted from the provisions of the bill included in the conference report,
and we cannot understand what those words and phrases mean and their relation to
the bill. In that case, it is necessary to make a detailed statement on how those
words and phrases will affect the bill as a whole; but when the entire bill itself is
copied verbatim in the conference report, that is not necessary. So when the reason
for the Rule does not exist, the Rule does not exist.
(2 CONG. REC. NO. 2, p. 4056. (emphasis added))
Congressman Tolentino was sustained by the chair. The record shows that when the ruling was
appealed, it was upheld by viva voce and when a division of the House was called, it was sustained
by a vote of 48 to 5. (Id.,
p. 4058)
Nor is there any doubt about the power of a conference committee to insert new provisions as long
as these are germane to the subject of the conference. As this Court held in Philippine Judges
Association v. Prado, 227 SCRA 703 (1993), in an opinion written by then Justice Cruz, the
jurisdiction of the conference committee is not limited to resolving differences between the Senate
and the House. It may propose an entirely new provision. What is important is that its report is
subsequently approved by the respective houses of Congress. This Court ruled that it would not
entertain allegations that, because new provisions had been added by the conference committee,
there was thereby a violation of the constitutional injunction that "upon the last reading of a bill, no
amendment thereto shall be allowed."
Applying these principles, we shall decline to look into the petitioners' charges that
an amendment was made upon the last reading of the bill that eventually became
R.A. No. 7354 and that copiesthereof in its final form were not distributed among the
members of each House. Both the enrolled bill and the legislative journals certify that
the measure was duly enacted i.e., in accordance with Article VI, Sec. 26 (2) of the
Constitution. We are bound by such official assurances from a coordinate department
of the government, to which we owe, at the very least, a becoming courtesy.
(Id. at 710. (emphasis added))
It is interesting to note the following description of conference committees in the Philippines in a
1979 study:
Conference committees may be of two types: free or instructed. These committees
may be given instructions by their parent bodies or they may be left without
instructions. Normally the conference committees are without instructions, and this is
why they are often critically referred to as "the little legislatures." Once bills have
been sent to them, the conferees have almost unlimited authority to change the
clauses of the bills and in fact sometimes introduce new measures that were not in
the original legislation. No minutes are kept, and members' activities on conference
committees are difficult to determine. One congressman known for his idealism put it
this way: "I killed a bill on export incentives for my interest group [copra] in the

83

conference committee but I could not have done so anywhere else." The conference
committee submits a report to both houses, and usually it is accepted. If the report is
not accepted, then the committee is discharged and new members are appointed.
(R. Jackson, Committees in the Philippine Congress, in COMMITTEES AND
LEGISLATURES: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 163 (J. D. LEES AND M. SHAW,
eds.)).
In citing this study, we pass no judgment on the methods of conference committees. We cite it only
to say that conference committees here are no different from their counterparts in the United States
whose vast powers we noted in Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, supra. At all events, under
Art. VI, 16(3) each house has the power "to determine the rules of its proceedings," including those
of its committees. Any meaningful change in the method and procedures of Congress or its
committees must therefore be sought in that body itself.
V. The titles of S. No. 1630 and H. No. 11197. PAL maintains that R.A. No. 7716 violates Art. VI, 26
(1) of the Constitution which provides that "Every bill passed by Congress shall embrace only one
subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof." PAL contends that the amendment of its
franchise by the withdrawal of its exemption from the VAT is not expressed in the title of the law.
Pursuant to 13 of P.D. No. 1590, PAL pays a franchise tax of 2% on its gross revenue "in lieu of all
other taxes, duties, royalties, registration, license and other fees and charges of any kind, nature, or
description, imposed, levied, established, assessed or collected by any municipal, city, provincial or
national authority or government agency, now or in the future."
PAL was exempted from the payment of the VAT along with other entities by 103 of the National
Internal Revenue Code, which provides as follows:
103. Exempt transactions. The following shall be exempt from the value-added
tax:
xxx xxx xxx
(q) Transactions which are exempt under special laws or international agreements to
which the Philippines is a signatory.
R.A. No. 7716 seeks to withdraw certain exemptions, including that granted to PAL, by amending
103, as follows:
103. Exempt transactions. The following shall be exempt from the value-added
tax:
xxx xxx xxx
(q) Transactions which are exempt under special laws, except those granted under
Presidential Decree Nos. 66, 529, 972, 1491, 1590. . . .
The amendment of 103 is expressed in the title of R.A. No. 7716 which reads:
AN ACT RESTRUCTURING THE VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT) SYSTEM, WIDENING
ITS TAX BASE AND ENHANCING ITS ADMINISTRATION, AND FOR THESE
PURPOSES AMENDING AND REPEALING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE
NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
By stating that R.A. No. 7716 seeks to "[RESTRUCTURE] THE VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT) SYSTEM
[BY] WIDENING ITS TAX BASE AND ENHANCING ITS ADMINISTRATION, AND FOR THESE
PURPOSES AMENDING AND REPEALING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," Congress thereby

84

clearly expresses its intention to amend any provision of the NIRC which stands in the way of
accomplishing the purpose of the law.
PAL asserts that the amendment of its franchise must be reflected in the title of the law by specific
reference to P.D. No. 1590. It is unnecessary to do this in order to comply with the constitutional
requirement, since it is already stated in the title that the law seeks to amend the pertinent provisions
of the NIRC, among which is 103(q), in order to widen the base of the VAT. Actually, it is the bill
which becomes a law that is required to express in its title the subject of legislation. The titles of H.
No. 11197 and S. No. 1630 in fact specifically referred to 103 of the NIRC as among the provisions
sought to be amended. We are satisfied that sufficient notice had been given of the pendency of
these bills in Congress before they were enacted into what is now R.A.
No. 7716.
In Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, supra, a similar argument as that now made by PAL was
rejected. R.A. No. 7354 is entitled AN ACT CREATING THE PHILIPPINE POSTAL CORPORATION,
DEFINING ITS POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, PROVIDING FOR
REGULATION OF THE INDUSTRY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES CONNECTED THEREWITH. It
contained a provision repealing all franking privileges. It was contended that the withdrawal of
franking privileges was not expressed in the title of the law. In holding that there was sufficient
description of the subject of the law in its title, including the repeal of franking privileges, this Court
held:
To require every end and means necessary for the accomplishment of the general
objectives of the statute to be expressed in its title would not only be unreasonable
but would actually render legislation impossible. [Cooley, Constitutional Limitations,
8th Ed., p. 297] As has been correctly explained:
The details of a legislative act need not be specifically stated in its
title, but matter germane to the subject as expressed in the title, and
adopted to the accomplishment of the object in view, may properly be
included in the act. Thus, it is proper to create in the same act the
machinery by which the act is to be enforced, to prescribe the
penalties for its infraction, and to remove obstacles in the way of its
execution. If such matters are properly connected with the subject as
expressed in the title, it is unnecessary that they should also have
special mention in the title. (Southern Pac. Co. v. Bartine, 170 Fed.
725)
(227 SCRA at 707-708)
VI. Claims of press freedom and religious liberty. We have held that, as a general proposition, the
press is not exempt from the taxing power of the State and that what the constitutional guarantee of
free press prohibits are laws which single out the press or target a group belonging to the press for
special treatment or which in any way discriminate against the press on the basis of the content of
the publication, and R.A. No. 7716 is none of these.
Now it is contended by the PPI that by removing the exemption of the press from the VAT while
maintaining those granted to others, the law discriminates against the press. At any rate, it is
averred, "even nondiscriminatory taxation of constitutionally guaranteed freedom is unconstitutional."
With respect to the first contention, it would suffice to say that since the law granted the press a
privilege, the law could take back the privilege anytime without offense to the Constitution. The
reason is simple: by granting exemptions, the State does not forever waive the exercise of its
sovereign prerogative.
Indeed, in withdrawing the exemption, the law merely subjects the press to the same tax burden to
which other businesses have long ago been subject. It is thus different from the tax involved in the
cases invoked by the PPI. The license tax in Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 80 L.
Ed. 660 (1936) was found to be discriminatory because it was laid on the gross advertising receipts
only of newspapers whose weekly circulation was over 20,000, with the result that the tax applied

85

only to 13 out of 124 publishers in Louisiana. These large papers were critical of Senator Huey Long
who controlled the state legislature which enacted the license tax. The censorial motivation for the
law was thus evident.
On the other hand, in Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm'r of Revenue, 460 U.S.
575, 75 L. Ed. 2d 295 (1983), the tax was found to be discriminatory because although it could have
been made liable for the sales tax or, in lieu thereof, for the use tax on the privilege of using, storing
or consuming tangible goods, the press was not. Instead, the press was exempted from both taxes.
It was, however, later made to pay a specialuse tax on the cost of paper and ink which made these
items "the only items subject to the use tax that were component of goods to be sold at retail." The
U.S. Supreme Court held that the differential treatment of the press "suggests that the goal of
regulation is not related to suppression of expression, and such goal is presumptively
unconstitutional." It would therefore appear that even a law that favors the press is constitutionally
suspect. (See the dissent of Rehnquist, J. in that case)
Nor is it true that only two exemptions previously granted by E.O. No. 273 are withdrawn "absolutely
and unqualifiedly" by R.A. No. 7716. Other exemptions from the VAT, such as those previously
granted to PAL, petroleum concessionaires, enterprises registered with the Export Processing Zone
Authority, and many more are likewise totally withdrawn, in addition to exemptions which are partially
withdrawn, in an effort to broaden the base of the tax.
The PPI says that the discriminatory treatment of the press is highlighted by the fact that
transactions, which are profit oriented, continue to enjoy exemption under R.A. No. 7716. An
enumeration of some of these transactions will suffice to show that by and large this is not so and
that the exemptions are granted for a purpose. As the Solicitor General says, such exemptions are
granted, in some cases, to encourage agricultural production and, in other cases, for the personal
benefit of the end-user rather than for profit. The exempt transactions are:
(a) Goods for consumption or use which are in their original state (agricultural,
marine and forest products, cotton seeds in their original state, fertilizers, seeds,
seedlings, fingerlings, fish, prawn livestock and poultry feeds) and goods or services
to enhance agriculture (milling of palay, corn, sugar cane and raw sugar, livestock,
poultry feeds, fertilizer, ingredients used for the manufacture of feeds).
(b) Goods used for personal consumption or use (household and personal effects of
citizens returning to the Philippines) or for professional use, like professional
instruments and implements, by persons coming to the Philippines to settle here.
(c) Goods subject to excise tax such as petroleum products or to be used for
manufacture of petroleum products subject to excise tax and services subject to
percentage tax.
(d) Educational services, medical, dental, hospital and veterinary services, and
services rendered under employer-employee relationship.
(e) Works of art and similar creations sold by the artist himself.
(f) Transactions exempted under special laws, or international agreements.
(g) Export-sales by persons not VAT-registered.
(h) Goods or services with gross annual sale or receipt not exceeding P500,000.00.
(Respondents' Consolidated Comment on the Motions for Reconsideration, pp. 5860)
The PPI asserts that it does not really matter that the law does not discriminate against the press
because "even nondiscriminatory taxation on constitutionally guaranteed freedom is
unconstitutional." PPI cites in support of this assertion the following statement in Murdock
v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 87 L. Ed. 1292 (1943):

86

The fact that the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory" is immaterial. The protection

afforded by the First Amendment is not so restricted. A license tax certainly does not
acquire constitutional validity because it classifies the privileges protected by the
First Amendment along with the wares and merchandise of hucksters and peddlers
and treats them all alike. Such equality in treatment does not save the ordinance.
Freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion are in preferred position.
The Court was speaking in that case of a license tax, which, unlike an ordinary tax, is mainly for
regulation. Its imposition on the press is unconstitutional because it lays a prior restraint on the
exercise of its right. Hence, although its application to others, such those selling goods, is valid, its
application to the press or to religious groups, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, in connection with
the latter's sale of religious books and pamphlets, is unconstitutional. As the U.S. Supreme Court put
it, "it is one thing to impose a tax on income or property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to
exact a tax on him for delivering a sermon."
A similar ruling was made by this Court in American Bible Society v. City of Manila, 101 Phil. 386
(1957) which invalidated a city ordinance requiring a business license fee on those engaged in the
sale of general merchandise. It was held that the tax could not be imposed on the sale of bibles by
the American Bible Society without restraining the free exercise of its right to propagate.
The VAT is, however, different. It is not a license tax. It is not a tax on the exercise of a privilege,
much less a constitutional right. It is imposed on the sale, barter, lease or exchange of goods or
properties or the sale or exchange of services and the lease of properties purely for revenue
purposes. To subject the press to its payment is not to burden the exercise of its right any more than
to make the press pay income tax or subject it to general regulation is not to violate its freedom
under the Constitution.
Additionally, the Philippine Bible Society, Inc. claims that although it sells bibles, the proceeds
derived from the sales are used to subsidize the cost of printing copies which are given free to those
who cannot afford to pay so that to tax the sales would be to increase the price, while reducing the
volume of sale. Granting that to be the case, the resulting burden on the exercise of religious
freedom is so incidental as to make it difficult to differentiate it from any other economic imposition
that might make the right to disseminate religious doctrines costly. Otherwise, to follow the
petitioner's argument, to increase the tax on the sale of vestments would be to lay an impermissible
burden on the right of the preacher to make a sermon.
On the other hand the registration fee of P1,000.00 imposed by 107 of the NIRC, as amended by
7 of R.A. No. 7716, although fixed in amount, is really just to pay for the expenses of registration
and enforcement of provisions such as those relating to accounting in 108 of the NIRC. That the
PBS distributes free bibles and therefore is not liable to pay the VAT does not excuse it from the
payment of this fee because it also sells some copies. At any rate whether the PBS is liable for the
VAT must be decided in concrete cases, in the event it is assessed this tax by the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue.
VII. Alleged violations of the due process, equal protection and contract clauses and the rule on
taxation. CREBA asserts that R.A. No. 7716 (1) impairs the obligations of contracts, (2) classifies
transactions as covered or exempt without reasonable basis and (3) violates the rule that taxes
should be uniform and equitable and that Congress shall "evolve a progressive system of taxation."
With respect to the first contention, it is claimed that the application of the tax to existing contracts of
the sale of real property by installment or on deferred payment basis would result in substantial
increases in the monthly amortizations to be paid because of the 10% VAT. The additional amount, it
is pointed out, is something that the buyer did not anticipate at the time he entered into the contract.
The short answer to this is the one given by this Court in an early case: "Authorities from numerous
sources are cited by the plaintiffs, but none of them show that a lawful tax on a new subject, or an
increased tax on an old one, interferes with a contract or impairs its obligation, within the meaning of
the Constitution. Even though such taxation may affect particular contracts, as it may increase the
debt of one person and lessen the security of another, or may impose additional burdens upon one
class and release the burdens of another, still the tax must be paid unless prohibited by the

87

Constitution, nor can it be said that it impairs the obligation of any existing contract in its true legal
sense." (La Insular v. Machuca Go-Tauco and Nubla Co-Siong, 39 Phil. 567, 574 (1919)). Indeed not
only existing laws but also "the reservation of the essential attributes of sovereignty, is . . . read into
contracts as a postulate of the legal order." (Philippine-American Life Ins. Co. v. Auditor General, 22
SCRA 135, 147 (1968)) Contracts must be understood as having been made in reference to the
possible exercise of the rightful authority of the government and no obligation of contract can extend
to the defeat of that authority. (Norman v. Baltimore and Ohio R.R., 79 L. Ed. 885 (1935)).
It is next pointed out that while 4 of R.A. No. 7716 exempts such transactions as the sale of
agricultural products, food items, petroleum, and medical and veterinary services, it grants no
exemption on the sale of real property which is equally essential. The sale of real property for
socialized and low-cost housing is exempted from the tax, but CREBA claims that real estate
transactions of "the less poor," i.e., the middle class, who are equally homeless, should likewise be
exempted.
The sale of food items, petroleum, medical and veterinary services, etc., which are essential goods
and services was already exempt under 103, pars. (b) (d) (1) of the NIRC before the enactment of
R.A. No. 7716. Petitioner is in error in claiming that R.A. No. 7716 granted exemption to these
transactions, while subjecting those of petitioner to the payment of the VAT. Moreover, there is a
difference between the "homeless poor" and the "homeless less poor" in the example given by
petitioner, because the second group or middle class can afford to rent houses in the meantime that
they cannot yet buy their own homes. The two social classes are thus differently situated in life. "It is
inherent in the power to tax that the State be free to select the subjects of taxation, and it has been
repeatedly held that 'inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation,
or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation.'" (Lutz v. Araneta, 98 Phil. 148, 153 (1955). Accord,
City of Baguio v. De Leon, 134 Phil. 912 (1968); Sison, Jr. v. Ancheta, 130 SCRA 654, 663 (1984);
Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas, Inc. v. Tan, 163 SCRA 371 (1988)).
Finally, it is contended, for the reasons already noted, that R.A. No. 7716 also violates Art. VI, 28(1)
which provides that "The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a
progressive system of taxation."
Equality and uniformity of taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same
class be taxed at the same rate. The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable and natural
classifications for purposes of taxation. To satisfy this requirement it is enough that the statute or
ordinance applies equally to all persons, forms and corporations placed in similar situation. (City of
Baguio v. De Leon, supra; Sison, Jr. v. Ancheta, supra)
Indeed, the VAT was already provided in E.O. No. 273 long before R.A. No. 7716 was enacted. R.A.
No. 7716 merely expands the base of the tax. The validity of the original VAT Law was questioned
in Kapatiran ng Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas, Inc. v. Tan, 163 SCRA 383 (1988) on
grounds similar to those made in these cases, namely, that the law was "oppressive, discriminatory,
unjust and regressive in violation of Art. VI, 28(1) of the Constitution." (At 382) Rejecting the
challenge to the law, this Court held:
As the Court sees it, EO 273 satisfies all the requirements of a valid tax. It is uniform.
...
The sales tax adopted in EO 273 is applied similarly on all goods and services sold
to the public, which are not exempt, at the constant rate of 0% or 10%.
The disputed sales tax is also equitable. It is imposed only on sales of goods or
services by persons engaged in business with an aggregate gross annual sales
exceeding P200,000.00. Small corner sari-sari stores are consequently exempt from
its application. Likewise exempt from the tax are sales of farm and marine products,
so that the costs of basic food and other necessities, spared as they are from the
incidence of the VAT, are expected to be relatively lower and within the reach of the
general public.
(At 382-383)

88

The CREBA claims that the VAT is regressive. A similar claim is made by the Cooperative Union of
the Philippines, Inc. (CUP), while petitioner Juan T. David argues that the law contravenes the
mandate of Congress to provide for a progressive system of taxation because the law imposes a flat
rate of 10% and thus places the tax burden on all taxpayers without regard to their ability to pay.
The Constitution does not really prohibit the imposition of indirect taxes which, like the VAT, are
regressive. What it simply provides is that Congress shall "evolve a progressive system of taxation."
The constitutional provision has been interpreted to mean simply that "direct taxes are . . . to be
preferred [and] as much as possible, indirect taxes should be minimized." (E. FERNANDO, THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES 221 (Second ed. (1977)). Indeed, the mandate to Congress
is not to prescribe, but to evolve, a progressive tax system. Otherwise, sales taxes, which perhaps
are the oldest form of indirect taxes, would have been prohibited with the proclamation of Art. VIII,
17(1) of the 1973 Constitution from which the present Art. VI, 28(1) was taken. Sales taxes are
also regressive.
Resort to indirect taxes should be minimized but not avoided entirely because it is difficult, if not
impossible, to avoid them by imposing such taxes according to the taxpayers' ability to pay. In the
case of the VAT, the law minimizes the regressive effects of this imposition by providing for zero
rating of certain transactions (R.A. No. 7716, 3, amending 102 (b) of the NIRC), while
granting exemptions to other transactions. (R.A. No. 7716, 4, amending 103 of the NIRC).
Thus, the following transactions involving basic and essential goods and services are exempted from
the VAT:
(a) Goods for consumption or use which are in their original state (agricultural,
marine and forest products, cotton seeds in their original state, fertilizers, seeds,
seedlings, fingerlings, fish, prawn livestock and poultry feeds) and goods or services
to enhance agriculture (milling of palay, corn sugar cane and raw sugar, livestock,
poultry feeds, fertilizer, ingredients used for the manufacture of feeds).
(b) Goods used for personal consumption or use (household and personal effects of
citizens returning to the Philippines) and or professional use, like professional
instruments and implements, by persons coming to the Philippines to settle here.
(c) Goods subject to excise tax such as petroleum products or to be used for
manufacture of petroleum products subject to excise tax and services subject to
percentage tax.
(d) Educational services, medical, dental, hospital and veterinary services, and
services rendered under employer-employee relationship.
(e) Works of art and similar creations sold by the artist himself.
(f) Transactions exempted under special laws, or international agreements.
(g) Export-sales by persons not VAT-registered.
(h) Goods or services with gross annual sale or receipt not exceeding P500,000.00.
(Respondents' Consolidated Comment on the Motions for Reconsideration, pp. 5860)
On the other hand, the transactions which are subject to the VAT are those which involve goods and
services which are used or availed of mainly by higher income groups. These include real properties
held primarily for sale to customers or for lease in the ordinary course of trade or business, the right
or privilege to use patent, copyright, and other similar property or right, the right or privilege to use
industrial, commercial or scientific equipment, motion picture films, tapes and discs, radio, television,
satellite transmission and cable television time, hotels, restaurants and similar places, securities,
lending investments, taxicabs, utility cars for rent, tourist buses, and other common carriers, services
of franchise grantees of telephone and telegraph.

89

The problem with CREBA's petition is that it presents broad claims of constitutional violations by
tendering issues not at retail but at wholesale and in the abstract. There is no fully developed record
which can impart to adjudication the impact of actuality. There is no factual foundation to show in
the concrete the application of the law to actual contracts and exemplify its effect on property rights.
For the fact is that petitioner's members have not even been assessed the VAT. Petitioner's case is
not made concrete by a series of hypothetical questions asked which are no different from those
dealt with in advisory opinions.
The difficulty confronting petitioner is thus apparent. He alleges arbitrariness. A mere
allegation, as here, does not suffice. There must be a factual foundation of such
unconstitutional taint. Considering that petitioner here would condemn such a
provision as void on its face, he has not made out a case. This is merely to adhere to
the authoritative doctrine that where the due process and equal protection clauses
are invoked, considering that they are not fixed rules but rather broad standards,
there is a need for proof of such persuasive character as would lead to such a
conclusion. Absent such a showing, the presumption of validity must prevail.
(Sison, Jr. v. Ancheta, 130 SCRA at 661)
Adjudication of these broad claims must await the development of a concrete case. It may be that
postponement of adjudication would result in a multiplicity of suits. This need not be the case,
however. Enforcement of the law may give rise to such a case. A test case, provided it is an actual
case and not an abstract or hypothetical one, may thus be presented.
Nor is hardship to taxpayers alone an adequate justification for adjudicating abstract issues.
Otherwise, adjudication would be no different from the giving of advisory opinion that does not really
settle legal issues.
We are told that it is our duty under Art. VIII, 1, 2 to decide whenever a claim is made that "there
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the government." This duty can only arise if an actual case or
controversy is before us. Under Art . VIII, 5 our jurisdiction is defined in terms of "cases" and all that
Art. VIII, 1, 2 can plausibly mean is that in the exercise of that jurisdiction we have the judicial
power to determine questions of grave abuse of discretion by any branch or instrumentality of the
government.
Put in another way, what is granted in Art. VIII, 1, 2 is "judicial power," which is "the power of a
court to hear and decide cases pending between parties who have the right to sue and be sued in
the courts of law and equity" (Lamb v. Phipps, 22 Phil. 456, 559 (1912)), as distinguished from
legislative and executive power. This power cannot be directly appropriated until it is apportioned
among several courts either by the Constitution, as in the case of Art. VIII, 5, or by statute, as in the
case of the Judiciary Act of 1948 (R.A. No. 296) and the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (B.P.
Blg. 129). The power thus apportioned constitutes the court's "jurisdiction," defined as "the power
conferred by law upon a court or judge to take cognizance of a case, to the exclusion of all others."
(United States v. Arceo, 6 Phil. 29 (1906)) Without an actual case coming within its jurisdiction, this
Court cannot inquire into any allegation of grave abuse of discretion by the other departments of the
government.
VIII. Alleged violation of policy towards cooperatives. On the other hand, the Cooperative Union of
the Philippines (CUP), after briefly surveying the course of legislation, argues that it was to adopt a
definite policy of granting tax exemption to cooperatives that the present Constitution embodies
provisions on cooperatives. To subject cooperatives to the VAT would therefore be to infringe a
constitutional policy. Petitioner claims that in 1973, P.D. No. 175 was promulgated exempting
cooperatives from the payment of income taxes and sales taxes but in 1984, because of the crisis
which menaced the national economy, this exemption was withdrawn by P.D. No. 1955; that in 1986,
P.D. No. 2008 again granted cooperatives exemption from income and sales taxes until December
31, 1991, but, in the same year, E.O. No. 93 revoked the exemption; and that finally in 1987 the
framers of the Constitution "repudiated the previous actions of the government adverse to the
interests of the cooperatives, that is, the repeated revocation of the tax exemption to

90

cooperatives and instead upheld the policy of strengthening the cooperatives by way of the grant of
tax exemptions," by providing the following in Art. XII:
1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of
opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and
services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding
productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the
underprivileged.
The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound
agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and
efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both
domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises
against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.
In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country
shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including
corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall be encouraged
to broaden the base of their ownership.
15. The Congress shall create an agency to promote the viability and growth of
cooperatives as instruments for social justice and economic development.
Petitioner's contention has no merit. In the first place, it is not true that P.D. No. 1955 singled out
cooperatives by withdrawing their exemption from income and sales taxes under P.D. No. 175, 5.
What P.D. No. 1955, 1 did was to withdraw the exemptions and preferential treatments theretofore
granted to private business enterprises in general, in view of the economic crisis which then beset
the nation. It is true that after P.D. No. 2008, 2 had restored the tax exemptions of cooperatives in
1986, the exemption was again repealed by E.O. No. 93, 1, but then again cooperatives were not
the only ones whose exemptions were withdrawn. The withdrawal of tax incentives applied to all,
including government and private entities. In the second place, the Constitution does not really
require that cooperatives be granted tax exemptions in order to promote their growth and viability.
Hence, there is no basis for petitioner's assertion that the government's policy toward cooperatives
had been one of vacillation, as far as the grant of tax privileges was concerned, and that it was to put
an end to this indecision that the constitutional provisions cited were adopted. Perhaps as a matter
of policy cooperatives should be granted tax exemptions, but that is left to the discretion of
Congress. If Congress does not grant exemption and there is no discrimination to cooperatives, no
violation of any constitutional policy can be charged.
Indeed, petitioner's theory amounts to saying that under the Constitution cooperatives are exempt
from taxation. Such theory is contrary to the Constitution under which only the following are exempt
from taxation: charitable institutions, churches and parsonages, by reason of Art. VI, 28 (3), and
non-stock, non-profit educational institutions by reason of Art. XIV, 4 (3).
CUP's further ground for seeking the invalidation of R.A. No. 7716 is that it denies cooperatives the
equal protection of the law because electric cooperatives are exempted from the VAT. The
classification between electric and other cooperatives (farmers cooperatives, producers
cooperatives, marketing cooperatives, etc.) apparently rests on a congressional determination that
there is greater need to provide cheaper electric power to as many people as possible, especially
those living in the rural areas, than there is to provide them with other necessities in life. We cannot
say that such classification is unreasonable.
We have carefully read the various arguments raised against the constitutional validity of R.A. No.
7716. We have in fact taken the extraordinary step of enjoining its enforcement pending resolution of
these cases. We have now come to the conclusion that the law suffers from none of the infirmities
attributed to it by petitioners and that its enactment by the other branches of the government does
not constitute a grave abuse of discretion. Any question as to its necessity, desirability or expediency
must be addressed to Congress as the body which is electorally responsible, remembering that, as
Justice Holmes has said, "legislators are the ultimate guardians of the liberties and welfare of the
people in quite as great a degree as are the courts." (Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. May, 194

91

U.S. 267, 270, 48 L. Ed. 971, 973 (1904)). It is not right, as petitioner in G.R. No. 115543 does in
arguing that we should enforce the public accountability of legislators, that those who took part in
passing the law in question by voting for it in Congress should later thrust to the courts the burden of
reviewing measures in the flush of enactment. This Court does not sit as a third branch of the
legislature, much less exercise a veto power over legislation.
WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsideration are denied with finality and the temporary restraining
order previously issued is hereby lifted.
SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

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

April 30, 1957

AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY, plaintiff-appellant,

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

92

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 of Sales

4th quarter 1945

P1,244.21

1st quarter 1946

2,206.85

2nd quarter 1946

1,950.38

3rd quarter 1946

2,235.99

4th quarter 1946

3,256.04

93

1st quarter 1947

13,241.07

2nd quarter 1947

15,774.55

3rd quarter 1947

14,654.13

4th quarter 1947

12,590.94

1st quarter 1948

11,143.90

2nd quarter 1948

14,715.26

3rd quarter 1948

38,333.83

4th quarter 1948

16,179.90

1st quarter 1949

23,975.10

2nd quarter 1949

17,802.08

3rd quarter 1949

16,640.79

4th quarter 1949

15,961.38

1st quarter 1950

18,562.46

2nd quarter 1950

21,816.32

3rd quarter 1950

25,004.55

4th quarter 1950

45,287.92

94

1st quarter 1951

37,841.21

2nd quarter 1951

29,103.98

3rd quarter 1951

20,181.10

4th quarter 1951

22,968.91

1st quarter 1952

23,002.65

2nd quarter 1952

17,626.96

3rd quarter 1952

17,921.01

4th quarter 1952

24,180.72

1st quarter 1953

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

95

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.

96

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 or occupations not
mentioned in this Ordinance, except those upon which the
City is not empowered to license or to tax P5.00
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

97

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

98

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."

99

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. 304-306).
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.

100

101