Paseo Realty and Development Corp.

v CA
October 13, 2004
Tinga, J,:

FACTS:
1. Paseo Realty Devt Corp (Petitioner) is a domestic corporation engaged in the lease of two parcels of land at Paseo de Roxas.

2. On 1990, it filed its income tax return for CY 1989, with an income tax due of Php 27, 653. 00.

3. According to the petitioner, it has an aggregate tax credit for the past years in the amount of Php 200, 130. Included in this amount is the Php
54, 000 which is the subject of the controversy (char) in this case.

4. On 1991, fearing for the prescription of the tax refund claim for 54K, it filed a petition for review at CTA, ( So apparently, either di
pinagbigyan or may inaction ang CIR sa kanilang tax refund claim.)

5. CTA allowed its claim for tax refund but later o reconsidered its decision. Why? Because the petitioners (P) failed to show their 1990 ITR.
Without the tax return, there is no way to prove whether the 54K was applied as a tax credit during their 1990 tax liability.

(may mga iba pang reasons pero kafoy na.)

6. On appeal, P asserted that there already is a decision in another CTA case which proved that the excess tax which was applied as tax credit for
their 1990 tax liability was their excess tax credit on 1988 and not 1989 (ito yung 54K).
CA affirmed CTA's decision.

Hence, this appeal. (Char.)

ISSUE/S:

Is PRDC entitled to a tax refund?

(ito inimbento ko nalang para maisingit lang yung doctrine later sa ruling)

HELD:

No.

1.. The decision of the CTA, absent any clear sign of arbitrariness and illegality, is given paramount importance by the Court since it has the
expertise in these cases.

2.P has no proof to buttress their claim that that the excess tax which was applied as tax credit for their 1990 tax liability was their excess tax
credit on 1988 and not 1989.

3.Them, not presenting their 1990 ITR is fatal to their case.

4.And even assuming that it was proven, it is illegal since Sect. 69. Chapter 2 of NIRC provides that refundable amounts can only be credited
against tax liabilities for the taxable quarter of the succeeding taxable year.

5.The grant of refund is based on the assumption that the tax is valid. Without tax return, it would be erroneous to grant refund since it would be
impossible to prove whether the tax paid is right or wrong. Tax refunds, like tax exemptions are construed strictly against the taxpayer.

Taxation is the destructive power which interferes with the personal an property rights of the people an takes from them a portion of their
property for the support of the government.

And since taxes are what we pay for a civilized society, and the lifeblood of the government, the law frowns against exemptions an tax
statutes granting tax exemptions are construed strictly against the taxpayer. A claim for refund must be clearly shown and is based on
language in the law too plain to be mistaken.Taxation is the rule, exemption therefrom is the exemption.
MCIAA v Marcos
2008
Tinga, J.:

FACTS:

1. MCIAA was created under RA 6958, mandated to undertake efficiently and economically mange the
MCIA at the Province of Cebu and the Lahug Airport.
2. According to Sect. 14 of RA6958, the MCIAA shall enjoy tax exemption from realty taxes imposed by the
government.
3. On 1994, the Provincial treasurer of Cebu assessed MCIAA for realty taxes on some parcels of land
owned by MCIAA. (2.3M)
4. MCIAA objected because of Section 14 an also, according to them, MCIAA falls within the purview of the
term instrumentalities of the government, which, according to Article 133 of the LGC, is exempted from any
kind of fees and taxes.
5. Responent;" Yep but your exemption was withdrawn by Section 193 (revoking the exmptns granted sa
mga GOCC) and Sect. 234 ( according to this Section, once a property of the RP is transferred to a taxable
person, it becomes taxable, too.)
6. MCIAA paid under protest. They lost in RTC and also in CA.

ISSUE/S:

Is MCIAA a taxable person?

HELD:

Yes.

1. No question that they are exempted under Sect. 14 of the RA 6958 and Section 133 (o) of the LGC but is qualified by Section 234 of the LGC.
Also, Section 193 categorically revoked the tax exemptions granted to GOCC.

2. The lands they own now were transferred to them by the Ph govt absolutely.
3. As a general rule, power to tax is an incident of sovereign an is unlimited in its range, acknowledging in its very nature no limits so that the
security against abuses is to be found only in the responsibility of the legislature who imposes these taxes to their constituents who are to pay for
it. Nevertheless, the Constitution imposes some limitations to it. It provides that the rule of taxation must be uniform and equitable and the
Congress must evolve a progressive system of Taxation.

It also considered as the power to destroy. It is a power which interferes with the personal and proprietary rights of the peop,eand takes away
from them a portion of their property for the support of the government.

Taxe statutes are construed strictly against the govt and liberally in favor of the taxpayer. But since taxes are what we pay for a civilized
society, or are the lifelood of the nation, the law frowns against tax exemptions and laws granting tax exemptions are contrues in
strictissimmi juris against the tax payer and liberally in favor of the government.
Exemption must be shwn in a laguage too plain t be mistaken. Taxation is the rule and exemption therefrom is the exception.
CREBA v Romulo
2000
Corona

FACTS:

1. Petitioner is an association of real estate developers. They are assailing the constitutionality of RA 8424;
impose minimum corporate income taxes to corporations. According to them, it violates due process because
it imposes a tax to a corporation een if there is no realized gain.
( A corporaton, beginning on its fourth year of operation, shall pay MCIT of 2 [er cent f it gross income. If
the NCIT is lower than MCIT, they shall pay the MCIT but if MCIT is lower, no MCIT shall be paid.
2.

ISSUE/S:

Is the imposition of the MCIT constitutional?

HELD:

Yes.

MCIT was devised as a relatively simple and effective revenue raising instrument compared to NCIT which is more difficult to control. It ensures
that everyone pays some minimum contribution to the support of the public sector.

It is not imposed oncapital as what the petitioners opine but on gross income.

Taxe statutes aret the lifeblood of the government for without taxes, a government can neither exist nor endure. It's source is derived
from the very existence of the State whose social contract with its people obliges it to promote common good and social welfare. It is
unlimited in range and searching in extend acknowledging in its very nature no limits so that the security against abuses is to be found
only in the responsibility of the legislature who imposes these taxes on their constituents who are to pay it.
Pepsi Cola Bottling vs Mun of Tanauan
1976
Martin

FACTS:

1. Petitioner is a manufacturer of beverages and were taxed by the respondents as per Ordinance Number 23
and Number 27. These ordinances were based on Section 2 of RA 2264 (LAA) which delegates taxing power
to municipalities.
2.
MUNICIPAL PRODUCTION TAX:
MO 23- levies taxes per bottle =1/16 of a peso.
MO 27 (effectively repeals MO 23) levies a tax of one centavo per gallon of a beverage. They realized kasi
na whether 8 ounce or twele ounce, iisa lang ang tax rate kasi per bottle. So nag- adjust sila. Triggered ang
Pepsi!)

3. Pepsi: It is unconstitutional because the imposed taxis too much and there is double taxation in play. AND
more importantly, there is an invalid delegation of taxing power here. (SECTION 2 of LAA)
ISSUE/S:

Whether or not Section 2 of LAA is constitutional.

HELD:

Yes.

The power tax is an essential attribute of sovereignty belonging as a matter of right to every independent State, It is inherently legislative in
nature and cannot be delegated to the exectuive and judicial branch withount infringing the principle of separation powers. BUT it admits of an
exemption: MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.

By necessary implication, the legislative power to create political corporation for purpose of localself- goovernment carries with it the power to
delegate in these lgus the power to tax.

Section 5, Article X: Every LGU has a power to create its own sources of revenue, subject to limitations as may be imposed by law.

Req; Public purpose, within the jurisdiction and uniform and equitable.

As to double taxation, no there is none. The law does not prohibit dt per se. It is only prohibited when there is direct double taxation.
SPAJPS.
And Ord No 27 lang naman ang ini- enforce. Also, not sales tax kasi per gallon naman.

CIR v Fortune Tobacco

2008
Tinga, J.:

FACTS:

1. Respondent is a manufacturer of different cigarette brands in the country. Prior to 1997, they were paying
ad valorem taxes for their products based on the 1977 TC of the Ph.
AVT-
Specific Tax-

2. On January 1, 1997, RA 8240 took effect which shifted the kind of tax they are paying from AVT to
specific tax.
3. Section 142 (145 now):The excise tax from any brand of cigarettes within the nxt three years shall not be
lesser than the tax which is due from eah brand on October, 1996.
Also. The excise tax on cigarette and cigars shall be increased by 12 per cent.
4. To implement this, the So implemented CIR RRM 17-99; "The new specific tax rate for any existing brand
of cigarette shall not be lower than the excise tax it is paying from January, 2000.
5. From January 1- 31, 2000 Resp paid at least 585M as tax.
6. R filed a tax refund/ tax credit because ang RRM daw is not in accordance with law.
7. CA and CTA ruled in favor of Fortune.
8. OSG: Pursue the spirit of the law. This is a revenue raising measure for cryin out loud. Literal
interpretation would result to lower tax revenue.
Respondent: Bitch, CTA and CA only followed the literal meaning of the law. No more no less. I am
triggered! Don't me.

ISSUE/S:

Issue: WON RRM 17- 99 is valid.

HELD:

No.

RRM 17- 99 adds qualification to RA 8424. It imposes a greater tax for the respondents, a situation not intended by RA 8424.

It is not enacted only for revenue measures but also to promote fair competition and equitable distribution of tax burden and simplifying tax
administration. (LMH)

The contention of the the CIR that R failed to prove that they are exempted from paying the tax because tax statues are construed blah blah, is
also untenable. Tax exemptins are based on legislative grace. If the tax refund they are seeking is based on a statute, ok CIR is correct.But it is not
the case here. Tax refund, in this case is based on solutio indebiti.

Taxes sall not be unduly exacted nor assumed beyond the plain meaning of tax laws.
\
(Also, SoF encroached the separation of powers in implementing RRM 17- 99. The power to tax is inherently legislative. It is based on the
principle that taxes are grants of the people and these grants must be made through their direct reps.

NPC vCabanatuang
2003
Puno
FACTS:

1. NPC is a GOCC created under CA No. 120. It is tasked to undertake hydroelectric generations of power
and production of electricity from nuclear plants.
2. On 1992, pursuant to Ordinance Number 27, based on Section 137 (franchise tax) and Section 151 of
LGC, the R assessed the P a franchise tax of 808K.
3. R refused to pay based on RA 6395 which exempts non- profit corpos from all kinds of taxes. Also, its
stock is subscribed and paid wholly by the Gov't.
4. RTC held hat they are exempt because LGC, a GL cannot ammend, RA 6395, a SL. CA- Sect. 193 of LGC
revoked all exemptions.

ISSUE/S:

Issue: Is NPC liable to pay franchise tax?

HELD:

Yes.

It is beyond argument that Municpality of avanatuan can impose franchise ax based on Section 151 and Section 137 of LGC.
There are two kinds of franchise.
Franchise to exist and franchise to exist business. The second kind is the one that is taxed under LGC.
Three requisites: 1. A person has a franchise. 2. Enjoying it within the jurisdiction of the taxing power. Both are met by NPC.

Yung sa owned by the government ek ek, the SC held that it is untenable. It is not the existence that is being taxed, but the privilige. The corpo
itself and not the stock holders.

Taxes are the lifeblood of the govt for without taxes, a govt can neither exist nor endure. The power to tax owes its source from the very existence
of the State, whose social contract with its people obliges it to promote public welfare and common good.
The theory behind taxing power emanates from necessity, because without it, a govt cannot fulfill its mandate of promoting public good.
Petron v Mayor
2008

FACTS:

1. The petitioners maintain a depot or a bulk plant at Navotas Fish complex.

2. Toby Tiangco, the mucipal mayr, sent them a letter stating the P are assessed of Php 6, 259, 000.00 from
their gross sales. The basis of this demand is Ordinance Number is Ord. 92- 03 or the New Navotas Revenue
Code.
3. Petitione arued that the assessment was void as they eempted from taxes under Artice 232, par. H of the
IRR of the Tax Code.
4. Mayor Tiangco didnt issue business permit to them and eventually orered its closure on 2003.
5. RTC- ordered payment of tax. But then the Supreme Court issued a TRO pending the resolution of this
case.
ISSUE/S:

Issue: Can an LLGU impose business taxes on persons or entitioes engaged in the sale of petroleum products?

HELD:

No.

Section 133 of the Local government Code, paragrapgh H categorically prohibits LGUs in imposing (1) excise taxes on articles enuerated in
NIRC and (2) taxes, fees and charges on petroleum products.

Although Section 143 of the LGC states that a municipality is authorized to to impose business taxes on awhole host of business activities and
Article X, Section 5 of the Constituiton no less give authority to LGU to its own sources of revenue and collect taxes, it is qualified by Section
133 which enumerates the limitations on the teaxing power of LGUs.

Section 5, Article x, paragraph B states that in case of doubt, tax statutes are construed liberally in favor of the taxpayer and strictly against the
governmen.
Republic v Caguioa
2003
Carpio- Morales

FACTS:

1. Congress enacted RA 7277 creating Subic Economic Freeport Zone (SBF) and Subic Bay Managment
Authority.
Section 12 (B) basically exempts the importation of raw materials, capital and equipment from taxes and
costum duties.
(C) No taxes, local and national, shall be imposed within SBF.
2. Pursuant to these, the respondents applied for, and were granted ,Certificate of Registration for Tax
Exemption from SBF.
3. Then, Congress enacted RA 9344 which ammended the NIRC.
Section 131; payment of excise Taxes on imported articles.
"Cigars and cigarettes, distilled spirits, fermented liquors and wine brought directly into SBF shall be subect
to tax."
4. So SBMA issued a memorandum declaring that all imporations within SBF shall be treated ike a regular
importation transaction.
5. R did not pay taxes so they were not allowed to use any warehousing enrty on SBF.
6. They filed a declaratory relief on RTC of Olongapo City, alleging, among others that RA 9344, a general
law, cannot supersede RA 7277, a special law.
7. RTC: They have a right mga bes (Certificates) and also, the presumption of the validity of RA 9344 was
overcome by the R.
OSG: DONT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT BITCH! YOU CANNOT ISSUE THAT WRIT BECAUSE TAXES
ARE THE LIFEBLOOD OF THE GOVERNMENT!

Dear Republic,
Injunction Bond; 1M.
Love, RTC
ISSUE/S:
WON the WPI issued by RTC is valid.
HELD:

No.

Section 3, Rule 58, Rules of Court- issuance of preliminary injunction;

1. There is clear and unmistakable right. 2. Invasion of right is substantial. 3. There is a serious necessity for the writ to prevent damage.
2. No vested right. A certificate is neither a right or a property.

The taxing power is plenary, unlimited and comprehensive. It is unlimited in range and searching in extent, acknowledging in its very nature no
limits so that the security against abuses is to be found only in the responsibility of the legislature ho imposes these taxes to their constituents.

Taxes emanates from necessity. Without taxes, a government can neither exist nor endure.

Taxes being the lifeblood of the government,it shoud be collected without unnecessary hindrance and every precaution must be taken not to
unduly suppress it.

RA 9344 revoked tax exemptions granted by RA 7277.

Tax exemptions are construed in strictissimmi juris against the taxpayer nd liberally in favor of the government.

CIR v SM Prme Holdings and Asia Realty Devt Corporation

2010
Del Castillo

FACTS:

1. Respondents are business corporations engaged in the business of operating cinema houses, among others.
2. BIR assessed the R for deficiency taxes for VAT for the year 2000; 124M; may other asessments. So the R
just filed a motion to consolidate all these. (From their gross receipts ito ha.)
3. CTA ruled that the R, based on the history of the VAT, are exempted from paying VAT. Also, they are
already taxed under LGC AAmusement Tax; 30 per cent.)

ISSUE/S:

Are the gross receipts of the respondents are subject to VAT.

HELD:

No.

First, it is very clear that showing or exhibition of pictures are not included in the enumerated items that are subjects to VAT. (Leasing of motion
picture and films lang, bes.)

The legislature never intended to include. Magiging 40 per cent na babayaran nilang tax. UNJUST and OPPRESSIVE na.

The power to tax is also called the power to destroy. It must be exercised with caution to minimize injury to the propretary rights o the
taxpayer. It must be exercised fairly, equallya nd uniformy, lest the collector kills the hen that lays the golden egg.

On order to maintain the trust of the people, it must be exercise justly and not treacherously.

As for the contention of the P that R failed to prove that they are exempted, R do not need to because there is no taxes are imposed on
them, in the first place.

Southern Cross Cement vs Cement Manufacturers

2005
Tinga

FACTS:

The resolution of this case centers on the correct interpretation of Section 5, RA 8800: The Secretary shall
apply a GSM upon a positive final determination of the Tariff Comm. that a foreign product is being
imported in the country and may cause serious injury to the local industry.

1. RA 8800 (SMA) was enactd by Congress after the ratification GATT and WTO. It provides for
mechanisms in theimposition of GSM in order to protect the local industry from the surge of foreign
products.
2. Philcemcor, the R, filed a petition to DTI to impose GSM gainst Portland Gray Cement, a product that is
imported by the Southern Cross, the P.
3. TC- Nope, not needed. Yes, you can, Sec. You are not bound by the decision of Tariff Comm.
4. DTI imposed a GSM against PGC.; 20 pesos per kilogram; Southern cross filed a petition at CTA.; R
argue that CTA does not have jurisdiction.
It found its way to the SC.
5. During the oral arguments, it was resolved that CTA has jurisdiction. SO the main issue to be resolved
here is......

ISSUE/S:

WON the GSM imposed by DTI Sec is valid.

HELD:

No.

A final determination of TC is needed before a GSM can be imposed. It is a safeguard against arbitrary imposition by the Secretary of
Trade.

CTA: there must a ruling, a petition is filed by intersted part, the decision is in connection with GSM.

Section 5 of RA 8800 is directly connected with Article VI, Section 28. Paragrapgh 2 of the Constitution.

"The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits and subject to such restrictions and limitations it may
impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other uties and imposts within the framewrok of the national
gvernment. "

The specified limit of RA 8800 is Section 5.

As to the R argument that GSM is an exercise of Police Power and not taxation, the SC held that it is untenable.

The motivation behind many taxation measures is the implementation of police power goals. Progreesive System of Taxation alleviate the margin
between richa nd poor; sin taxes help dissuade cinsumers in taking harmfu products like cigarettes and liquors.

TAXATION IS DISTINGUISHED FROM POLICE POWER AS TO THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO ACHIEVE THESE GOALS.

It was held that taxation may be made the implement of State's police power.

CIR v Central Luzon Drug

2005
Panganiban
FACTS:

1. R is a domestic corporation, engaged in selling medicine, uner the name of Mercury Drug.
2. On 1997, they filed an ITR stating therein that they incurred losses because in 1996, they gave 20 per cent
Senior Citizen discounts as per RA 7432 (Senior Citizens Acts). (904k)
3. They filed to the CIR a petition for tax refund or tax credit which was disallowed. They appealed to CTA
which affirmed the decision of CIR. Accdng to the decision, there must be an erronneous payment befire a
tax refund or tax credit be allowed.
CA reversed the decision holding that RA 7432 requirs neither a tax liability nor a payemnt to avail tax credit
or tax refund.

ISSUE/S:

Is the respondent to a refund even if it had not erroneously paid a tax liability?

HELD:

Yes.

Even though operating at loss, they can still claim for refund because RA 7432 requirs neither a tax liability nor a payemnt to
avail tax credit or tax refund.

RA 7432 has granted, without condition, tax credit benefit to all covered establishments.

Tax credit in this case is just compensation.

The privilege enjoyed by Senior Citizens does not come directly from the Sate but from the establishments.
The tax credit granted to them is just compensation to for private porperty taken by the State for public use.

The concept of public use is no longer confined to the traditional notion of use by the public, but held synonymous with public

interest, public benefit, public welfare, and public convenience.[78] The discount privilege to which our senior citizens are entitled
is actually a benefit enjoyed by the general public to which these citizens belong. The discounts given would have entered the
coffers and formed part of the gross sales of the private establishments concerned, were it not for RA 7432. The permanent
reduction in their total revenues is a forced subsidy corresponding to the taking of private property for public use or benefit.

As a result of the 20 percent discount imposed by RA 7432, respondent becomes entitled to a just compensation. This term refers
not only to the issuance of a tax credit certificate indicating the correct amount of the discounts given, but also to the promptness in
its release.

Besides, the taxation power can also be used as an implement for the exercise of the power of eminent domain.[80] Tax measures
are but enforced contributions exacted on pain of penal sanctions[81] and clearly imposed for a public purpose.[82] In recent
years, the power to tax has indeed become a most effective tool to realize social justice, public welfare, and the equitable
distribution of wealth.[83]
While it is a declared commitment under Section 1 of RA 7432, social justice cannot be invoked to trample on the rights of property
owners who under our Constitution and laws are also entitled to protection. The social justice consecrated in our [C]onstitution [is]

not intended to take away rights from a person and give them to another who is not entitled thereto. [84] For this reason, a just
compensation for income that is taken away from respondent becomes necessary. It is in the tax credit that our legislators find
support to realize social justice, and no administrative body can alter that fact.

Chavez v Ongpin
1990
Medialdea

FACTS:

1. The P is a taxpayers and owner of 3 parcels of land is paying realty taxes.

2. Another pertinent fact is that PD664, Section 21 provides that every five years, starting calendar year
1978, there shall be a provincial and city general revision in the assessment of RPT.
3. In 1986, the computation for RPT is still the 1978 values of properties.
4. The govt realized that because of this set- up, the govt is missing a lot of revenues. So in 1986, EO 73 was
issued provdin g that beginning January 1, 1987, the value of properties for the year 1984 will be the basis
for computation of RPT. If we are going to analyze it, the new computation for RPT should take effect on
1988. So nag- advance po ng 1 year.
5. Chavez challenged the validity of the said EO oppressive since he is going to pay up to 400 per cent in
increase sa RPT. Also, in violation of the due process clause since according to him, a new tax liability is
imposed.
ISSUE/S:
WON EO 73 is constitutional.
HELD:

It is constitutional.

1, Due process can only be invoked in case of exercise of "power to tax" by the legislature. But that is not the case here. E) 73does
not impose taxes, It only hastens the effectivity of legal procedures mandated by EO464.
The new valuation of property which became effective on 1987 instead of 1988 is justified by the whereas clause of E(464.

WHEREAS there was a need for the locak govt yo augment their financial resources to meet the rising cost of rendering effective
services to people.

NOT IN CONSONANT WITH A PRINCIPLE OF SOUND TAX SYSTEM; FISCAL ADEQUACY.

Cir v Algue
1988
Cruz

FACTS:

1. R is a domestic corporation engaged in engineering and other construction services.

2. They were assessed of the CIR of delinquent income tax in the amount of Php 83, 183. 00.
3. The tax liability arose because of the 75K tax deduction which was disallowed by CIR.
4. CIR: not reasonable and fictitious. Algue: Promotional fees.

ISSUE/S:

Was the deductions properly disallowed.

HELD:
No, it was not.

The R proved that the amount was periodically spent and not in lump sum, hence, the lack of receipts. This is a family corporation
so the set- up was very informal.
The burden of proving that the deduction was reasonable was meant by the Respondent.

Taxes are the lifeblood of the govrnment so it should be collected without unnecessary hindrances. On the other hand,
such collection should be made in accordance with law since any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for govt itself. It
is therefore necessary to reconcile the apparently conflicting interests of the taxpayer so that the eral reason for taxation,
which is promotion of common good, is met.

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

Cir v Solidbank
2003
Panganiban

FACTS:

1. On 1995, the R filed their Quarterly Percentage Tax Returns with corresponding gross receipts tax of of
Php 73, 734, 584. 00.
Their QPTR was 1, 500, 000, 000. 00. Included herein is the 350 FWT.
2. CTA ruled in a case entitled Asian banking v CTR that FWT should not be included in the computation of
gross receipts taxes,
3. Basing their argument in this decision, R applied for tax refund at CTA.
4. CTA: Go bes. Entitled ka sa refund. CA- I concur kay beshie.
5. CIR appealed sa SC.
6. R argued that if the decision will be reversed, double taxation would happen.
ISSUE/S:

Is the R entitled to a refund?

Will there be a double taxation?

HELD:
1. No.

Respondent claims that it is entitled to a refund on the basis of excess GRT payments. We disagree.

Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions. [107] Such exemptions are strictly construed against the taxpayer, being highly disfavored [108] and almost
said to be odious to the law.Hence, those who claim to be exempt from the payment of a particular tax must do so under clear and unmistakable terms found in the

statute. They must be able to point to some positive provision, not merely a vague implication,[109] of the law creating that right.[110]

The right of taxation will not be surrendered, except in words too plain to be mistaken. The reason is that the State cannot strip itself of this highest attribute of
sovereignty -- its most essential power of taxation -- by vague or ambiguous language. Since tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions, these are deemed to be

in derogation of sovereign authority and to be construed strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the exemption.[111]

No exemptions are normally allowed when a GRT is imposed. It is precisely designed to maintain simplicity in the tax collection effort of the government and to

assure its steady source of revenue even during an economic slump. [116]

2. No.
We have repeatedly said that the two taxes, subject of this litigation, are different from each other.The basis of their imposition may be the same, but their natures
are different, thus leading us to a final point.Is there double taxation?
The Court finds none.
Double taxationmeans taxing the same property twice when it should be taxed only once; that is, x x x taxing the same person twice by the same jurisdiction for the

same thing.[117] It is obnoxious when the taxpayer is taxed twice, when it should be but once.[118]Otherwise described as direct duplicate taxation,[119] the two
taxes must be imposed on the same subject matter, for the same purpose, by the same taxing authority, within the same jurisdiction, during the same taxing period; and they

must be of the same kind or character.[120]

First, the taxes herein are imposed on two different subject matters.The subject matter of the FWT is the passive income generated in the form of interest on
deposits and yield on deposit substitutes, while the subject matter of the GRT is the privilege of engaging in the business of banking.

A tax based on receipts is a tax on business rather than on the property; hence, it is an excise [121] rather than a property tax.[122] It is not an income tax,
unlike the FWT.
Second, although both taxes are national in scope because they are imposed by the same taxing authority -- the national government under the Tax Code -- and
operate within the same Philippine jurisdiction for the same purpose of raising revenues, the taxing periods they affect are different.The FWT is deducted and
withheld as soon as the income is earned, and is paid after every calendar quarter in which it is earned. On the other hand, the GRT is neither deducted nor
withheld, but is paid only after every taxable quarter in which it is earned.
Third, these two taxes are of different kinds or characters.The FWT is an income tax subject to withholding, while the GRT is a percentage tax not subject to
withholding.
In short, there is no double taxation, because there is no taxing twice, by the same taxing authority, within the same jurisdiction, for the same purpose, in different

taxing periods, some of the property in the territory. [125] Subjecting interest income to a 20% FWT and including it in the computation of the 5% GRT is clearly
not double taxation.