NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION vs. CITY OF CABANATUAN GR. No.

149110, April 9, 2003 Facts: NAPOCOR, the petitioner, is a governmentowed and controlled corporation created under Commonwealth Act 120. It is tasked to undertake the development of hydroelectric generations of power and the production of electricity from nuclear, geothermal, and other sources, as well as, the transmission of electric power on a nationwide basis. For many years now, NAPOCOR sells electric power to the resident Cabanatuan City, posting a gross income of P107,814,187.96 in 1992. Pursuant to Sec. 37 of Ordinance No. 165-92, the respondent Cabanatuan City assessed the petitioner a franchise tax amounting to P808,606.41, representing 75% of 1% of the formers gross receipts for the preceding year. Petitioner, whose capital stock was subscribed and wholly paid by the Philippine Government, refused to pay the tax assessment. It argued that the respondent has no authority to impose tax on government entities. Petitioner also contend that as a non-profit organization, it is exempted from the payment of all forms of taxes, charges, duties or fees in accordance with Sec. 13 of RA 6395, as amended. The respondent filed a collection suit in the RTC of Cabanatuan City, demanding that petitioner pay the assessed tax, plus surcharge equivalent to 25% of the amount of tax and 2% monthly interest. Respondent alleged that petitioners exemption from local taxes has been repealed by Sec. 193 of RA 7160 (Local Government Code). The trial court issued an order dismissing the case. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and ordered the petitioner to pay the city government the tax assessment. Issues: (1) Is the NAPOCOR excluded from the coverage of the franchise tax simply because its stocks are wholly owned by the National Government and

its charter characterized is as a non-profit organization? (2) Is the NAPOCORs exemption from all forms of taxes repealed by the provisions of the Local Government Code (LGC)? Held: (1) NO. To stress, a franchise tax is imposed based not on the ownership but on the exercise by the corporation of a privilege to do business. The taxable entity is the corporation which exercises the franchise, and not the individual stockholders. By virtue of its charter, petitioner was created as a separate and distinct entity from the National Government. It can sue and be sued under its own name, and can exercise all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Code. To be sure, the ownership by the National Government of its entire capital stock does not necessarily imply that petitioner is not engaged in business. (2) YES. One of the most significant provisions of the LGC is the removal of the blanket exclusion of instrumentalities and agencies of the National Government from the coverage of local taxation. Although as a general rule, LGUs cannot impose taxes, fees, or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, this rule now admits an exception, i.e. when specific provisions of the LGC authorize the LGUs to impose taxes, fees, or charges on the aforementioned entities. The legislative purpose to withdraw tax privileges enjoyed under existing laws or charter is clearly manifested by the language used on Sec. 137 and 193 categorically withdrawing such exemption subject only to the exceptions enumerated. Since it would be tedious and impractical to attempt to enumerate all the existing statutes providing for special tax exemptions or privileges, the LGC provided for an express, albeit general, withdrawal of such exemptions or privileges. No more unequivocal language could have been used.

Commissioner vs. Algue GRL-28890, 17 February 1988 First Division, Cruz (J); 4 concur
DOCTRINE : 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 of taxation and should dispel the erroneous notion that it is an arbitrary method of exaction by those in the seat of power. Facts: The Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company (PSEDC) appointed Algue Inc. as its agent, authorizing it to sell its land, factories, and oil manufacturing process. The Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation (VOICP) purchased PSEDC properties. For the sale, Algue received a commission of P125,000 and it was from this commission that it paid Guevara, et. al. organizers of the VOICP, P75,000 in promotional fees. In 1965, Algue received an assessment from the commissioner of Internal Revenue in the amount of P83,183.85 as delinquency income tax for years 1958 and 1959. Algue filed a protest or request for reconsideration which was not acted upon by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). The counsel for Algue had to accept the warrant of distrant and levy. Algue, however, filed a petition for review with the Coourt of Tax Appeals. Issue: Whether the assessment was reasonable. Held: Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance. Every person who is able to pay must contribute his share in the running of the government. The Government, for his 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 is an arbitrary method of exaction by those in the seat of power.

Tax collection, however, should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself. For all the awesome power of the tax collector, he may still be stopped in his tracks if the taxpayer can demonstrate that the law has not been observed. Herein, the claimed deduction (pursuant to Section 30 [a] [1] of the Tax Code and Section 70 [1] of Revenue Regulation 2: as to compensation for personal services) had been legitimately by Algue Inc. It has further proven that the payment of fees was reasonable and necessary in light of the efforts exerted by the payees in inducing investors (in VOICP) to involve themselves in an experimental enterprise or a business requiring millions of pesos. The assessment was not reasonable.

PHIL. GUARANTY CO., INC. v. CIR GR No. L-22074, April 30, 1965 13 SCRA 775

FACTS: The petitioner Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc., a domestic insurance company, entered into reinsurance contracts with foreign insurance companies not doing business in the country, thereby ceding to foreign reinsurers a portion of the premiums on insurance it has originally underwritten in the Philippines. The premiums paid by such companies were excluded by the petitioner from its gross income when it file its income tax returns for 1953 and 1954. Furthermore, it did not withhold or pay tax on them. Consequently, the CIR assessed against the petitioner withholding taxes on the ceded reinsurance premiums to which the latter protested the assessment on the ground that the premiums are not subject to tax for the premiums did not constitute income from sources within the Philippines because the foreign reinsurers did not engage in business in the Philippines, and CIR's previous rulings did not require insurance companies to withhold income tax due from foreign companies. ISSUE: Are insurance companies not required to withhold tax on reinsurance premiums ceded to foreign insurance companies, which deprives the government from collecting the tax due from them?

HELD: No. The power to tax is an attribute of sovereignty. It is a power emanating from necessity. It is a necessary burden to preserve the State's sovereignty and a means to give the citizenry an army to resist an aggression, a navy to defend its shores from invasion, a corps of civil servants to serve, public improvement designed for the enjoyment of the citizenry and those which come within the State's territory, and facilities and protection which a government is supposed to provide. Considering that the reinsurance premiums in question were afforded protection by the government and the recipient foreign reinsurers exercised rights and privileges guaranteed by our laws, such reinsurance premiums and reinsurers should share the burden of maintaining the state. The petitioner's defense of reliance of good faith on rulings of the CIR requiring no withholding of tax due on reinsurance premiums may free the taxpayer from the payment of surcharges or penalties imposed for failure to pay the corresponding withholding tax, but it certainly would not exculpate it from liability to pay such withholding tax. The Government is not estopped from collecting taxes by the mistakes or errors of its agents.

OPERATORS , AND OTHER GROUPS EXPRESSLYMENTIONED IN THE LAW. Issue: Now, do tollway operators render services for a fee? Presidential Decree (P.D.) 1112 or the Toll Operation Decree establishes the legal basis for the services that tollway operators render. Essentially, tollway operators construct, maintain, and operate expressways, also called tollways, at the operators expense. Tollways serve as alternatives to regular public highways that meander through populated areas and branch out to local roads. Traffic in the regular public highways is for this reason slowmoving. In consideration for constructing tollways at their expense, the operators are allowed to collect government-approved fees from motorists using the tollways until such operators could fully recover their expenses and earn reasonable returns from their investments. When a tollway operator takes a toll fee from a motorist, the fee is in effect for the latters use of the tollway facilities over which the operator enjoys private proprietary rights[8][12] that its contract and the law recognize. In this sense, the tollway operator is no different from the following service providers under Section108 who allow others to use their properties or facilities for a fee:1. Lessors of property, whether personal or real;2. Warehousing service operators;3. Lessors or distributors of cinematographic films;4. Proprietors, operators or keepers of hotels, motels,resthouses, pension houses, inns, resorts;5. Lending investors (for use of money);6. Transportation contractors on their transport of goods or cargoes, including persons who transport goods or cargoes for hire and other domestic common carriers by land relative to their transport of goods or cargoes; and7. Common carriers by air and sea relative to their transport of passengers, goods or cargoes from one place in the Philippines to another place in the Philippines. It does not help petitioners cause that Section 108 subjects to VAT all kinds of services rendered for a fee regardless of whether or not the performance thereof calls for the exercise or use of the physical or mental faculties. This means that services to be subject to VAT need not fall under the traditional concept of services, the personal or professional kinds that require the use of human knowledge and skills. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Diaz and Timbol vs. CIR Facts: Petitioners Diaz and Timbol filed a petition for declaratory relief assailing the validity of the imposition of VAT by BIR on the collections of the tollway operators. They claim that VAT would result in increased toll fees. That the Congress in enacting the Tax Code, did intend to not include toll fees within the meaning of sale of services that are subject to VAT; that toll fee is a users tax, not a sale of services; that to impose VAT on toll fees would amount to a tax on public service. The OSG, on the other hand, stated that the Tax Code imposes VAT on all kinds of services of franchise grantees, including tollway operations, except where the law provides otherwise. ISSUE: ARE TOLLWAY OPERATORS COVERED BY VAT? Ruling: YES, BECAUSE THEY RENDER SERVICES FOR AFEE. THEY ARE JUST LIKE LESSORS, WAREHOUSE

ISSUE: GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT TOLL OPERATORSARE FRANCHISEES AND THEREFORE EXPRESSLYCOVERED BY VAT LAW. PETITIONERS

ARGUE THATTHEY ARE NOT FRANCHISEES BECAUSE THEY DO NOTHAVE LEGISLATIVE FRANCHISE. WHAT IS CORRECT? Toll operators are francishees because franchise cover sgovernment grants of a special right to do an act or series of acts of public concern. The construction, operation, and maintenance of toll facilities on public improvements are activities of public consequence that necessarily require a special grant of authority from the state. Also, the VAT law does not define franchisees as only those who have legislative franchise. And not only do tollway operators come under the broadterm all kinds of services, they also come under the specific class described in Section 108 as all other franchise grantees who are subject to VAT, except those under Section 119 of thisCode. Tollway operators are franchise grantees and they do not belong to exceptions (the low-income radio and/or television broadcasting companies with gross annual incomes of less than P10 million and gas and water utilities) that Section119[9][13] spares from the payment of VAT. The wordfranchise broadly covers government grants of a special right to do an act or series of acts of public concern. Petitioners, of course contend that tollway operators cannot be considered franchise grantees under Section 108 since they do not hold legislative franchises. But nothing in Section 108indicates that the franchise grantees it speaks of are those who hold legislative franchises. Petitioners give no reason, and the Court cannot surmise any, for making a distinction between franchises granted by Congress and franchises granted by some other government agency. The latter, properly constituted, may grant franchises. Indeed, franchises conferred or granted by local authorities, as agents of the state, constitute as much a legislative franchise as though the grant had been made by Congress itself. The term franchise has been broadly construed as referring, not only to authorizations that Congress directly issues in the form of a special law, but also to those granted by administrative agencies to which the power to grant franchises has been delegated by Congress. Tollway operators are, owing to the nature and object of their business, franchise grantees. The construction, operation, andmaintenance of toll facilities on public improvements areactivities of public consequence that necessarily require a specialgrant of authority from the state. Indeed, Congress grantedspecial franchise for the operation of tollways to the Philippine National Construction Company, the former tollwayconcessionaire for the North and South Luzon Expressways.Apart from Congress, tollway franchises may also be granted

bythe TRB, pursuant to the exercise of its delegated powers under P.D. 1112.[13][17] The franchise in this case is evidenced by aToll Operation Certificate.[14][18]XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

ISSUE: PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT TOLL FEES AREOF PUBLIC NATURE AND THEREFORE NOT SALE OF SERVICES. IS THEIR CONTENTION CORRECT? No. The law in the same manner includes electric utilities, telephone, telegraph, and broadcasting companies in its list of vat-covered businesses. Their services are also of public nature. Petitioners contend that the public nature of the services rendered by tollway operators excludes such services from the term sale of services under Section 108 of the Code. But, again, nothing in Section 108 supports this contention. The reverse is true. In specifically including by way of example electric utilities, telephone, telegraph, and broadcasting companies in its list of VATcovered businesses, Section 108 opens other companies rendering public service for a fee to the imposition of VAT.Businesses of a public nature such as public utilities and thecollection of tolls or charges for its use or service is a franchise.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ISSUE: PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT THE STATEMENTSMADE BY SOME LAWMAKERS DURING THE THEDELIBERATIONS ON THE VAT LAW SHOW INTENT TO EXEMPT TOLLWAY OPERATORS. CAN THESTATEMENTS OF THESE LAWMAKERS BECONSIDERED BINDING ON THE INTERPRETATION OFVAT COVERAGE? No. Statements made by individual members of congress in the consideration of a bill do not necessarily reflect the sense of that body and are, consequently, not controlling in the interpretation of law. The congressional will is ultimately determined by the language of the law that the lawmakers voted on. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ISSUE: IS TOLL FEE A USERS TAX AND SO VAT ONTOLL FEE WOULD BE TAX ON TAX? No. Toll fee is not a tax. It is not collected by bir or by the govt. It does not go to government coffers. It is not collected for a public purpose. ISSUE:

BUT IN THE CASE OF MIAA VS. CA FEES PAIDTO AIRPORTS WERE CONSIDERED TAX. DOES THE CASEOF MIAA APPLY? No. The subject of the maiaa case is terminal fee which goes tothe government. Also the issue in the miaa case is whether paranaque city can sell at auction property of the national government. The discussion on the terminal fee is just to emphasize the fact that the local government cannot tax the national government. Two. Petitioners argue that a toll fee is a users tax and to impose VAT on toll fees is tantamount to taxing a tax. Actually, petitioners base this argument on the following discussion in Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) v.Court of Appeals: No one can dispute that properties of public dominion mentioned in Article 420 of the Civil Code, like roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, are owned by the State. The term ports includes seaports and airports. The MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings constitute a port constructed by the State. Under Article 420 of the Civil Code, the MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings are properties of public dominion and thus owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines.x x x The operation by the government of a tollway does not change the character of the road as one for public use. Someone must pay for the maintenance of the road, either the public indirectly through the taxes they pay the government, or only those among the public who actually use the road through the tollfees they pay upon using the road. The tollway system is even a more efficient and equitable manner of taxing the public for the maintenance of public roads. The charging of fees to the public does not determine the character of the property whether it is for public dominion or not. Article 420 of the Civil Code defines property of public dominion as one intended for public use. Even if the government collects toll fees, the road is still intended for public use if anyone can use the road under the same terms and conditions as the rest of the public. The charging of fees, the limitation on the kind of vehicles that can use the road, the speed restrictions and other conditions for the use of the road do not affect the public character of the road. The terminal fees MIAA charges to passengers, as well as the landing fees MIAA charges to airlines, constitute the bulk of the income that maintains the operations of MIAA. The collection of such fees does not change the character of MIAA as an airport for public use. Such fees are often termed users tax. This means taxing those among the public who actually use a public facility instead of taxing all the public including those who never use the particular public facility. A users tax is more equitable a principle of taxation mandated in the 1987 Constitution. Petitioners assume that what the Court said above, equating terminal fees to a

users tax must also pertain to tollway fees. But the main issue in the MIAA case was whether or not Paraaque City could sell airport lands and buildings under MIAA administration at public auction to satisfy unpaid real estate taxes. Since local governments have no power to tax the national government, the Court held that the City could not proceed with the auction sale. MIAA forms part of the national government although not integrated in the department framework. Thus, its airport lands and buildings are properties of public dominion beyond the commerce of man under Article420(1) [21][25] of the Civil Code and could not be sold at public auction. As can be seen, the discussion in the MIAA case on toll roads and toll fees was made, not to establish a rule that tollway fees are users tax, but to make the point that airport lands and buildings are properties of public dominion and that the collection of terminal fees for their use does not make them private properties. Tollway fees are not taxes. Indeed, they are not assessed and collected by the BIR and do not go to the general coffers of the government. It would of course be another matter if Congress enacts a law imposing a users tax, collectible from motorists, for the construction and maintenance of certain roadways. The tax in such a case goes directly to the government for the replenishment of resources it spends for the roadways. This is not the case here. What the government seeks to tax here are fees collected from tollways that are constructed, maintained, and operated by private tollway operators at their own expense under the build, operate, and transfer scheme that the government has adopted for expressways. Except for a fraction given to the government, the toll fees essentially end up as earnings of the tollway operators. In sum, fees paid by the public to tollway operators for use of the tollways, are not taxes in any sense. A tax is imposed under the taxing power of the government principally for the purpose of raising revenues to fund public expenditures. Toll fees, on the other hand, are collected by private tollway operators as reimbursement for the costs and expenses incurred in the construction, maintenance and operation of the tollways, as well as to assure them a reasonable margin of income. Although tollfees are charged for the use of public facilities, therefore, they are not government exactions that can be properly treated as a tax. Taxes may be imposed only by the government under its sovereign authority, toll fees may be demanded by either the government or private individuals or entities, as an attribute of ownership. Parenthetically, VAT on tollway operations cannot be deemed a tax on tax due to the nature of VAT as an indirect tax. In indirect taxation,

a distinction is made between the liability for the tax and burden of the tax. The seller who is liable for the VAT may shift or pass on the amount of VAT it paid on goods, properties or services to the buyer. In such a case, what is transferred is not the sellers liability but merely the burden of the VAT. Thus, the seller remains directly and legally liable for payment of the VAT, but the buyer bears its burden since the amount of VAT paid by the former is added to the selling price. Once shifted, the VAT ceases to be a tax[26] [30] and simply becomes part of the cost that the buyer must pay in order to purchase the good, property or service. Consequently, VAT on tollway operations is not really a tax on the tollway user, but on the tollway operator. Under Section 105of the Code, [27][31] VAT is imposed on any person who, in the course of trade or business, sells or renders services for a fee. In other words, the seller of services, who in this case is the tollway operator, is the person liable for VAT. The latter merely shifts the burden of VAT to the tollway user as part of the toll fees . For this reason, VAT on tollway operations cannot be a tax on tax even if toll fees were deemed as a users tax. VAT is assessed against the tollway operators gross receipts and not necessarily on the toll fees. Although the tollway operator may shift the VAT burden to the tollway user, it will not make the latter directlyliable for the VAT. The shifted VAT burden simply becomes partof the toll fees that one has to pay in order to use the tollways.[28] [32]XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ISSUE: DOES PETITIONER TIMBOL HAVE APERSONALITY AS PETITIONER? No. She will not be affected by the reduction of profits. The right to recover investments belong to the tollway investors.

therein, whether permanent, temporary or casual, without first securing an employment permit from the Mayor of Manila and paying the permit fee of P50.00 except persons employed in the diplomatic or consular missions of foreign countries, or in the technical assistance programs of both the Philippine Government and any foreign government, and those working in their respective households, and members of religious orders or congregations, sect or denomination, who are not paid monetarily or in kind. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho (Tsai Pao Ho) who was employed in Manila, filed a petition with the CFI of Manila to declare City Ordinance No. 6537 as null and void for being discriminatory and violative of the rule of the uniformity in taxation. The trial court declared City Ordinance No. 6537 null and void. Villegas filed the present petition. ISSUE: Whether or not City Ordinance No. 6537 is a tax or revenue measure. RULING: Yes. The contention that City Ordinance No. 6537 is not a purely tax or revenue measure because its principal purpose is regulatory in nature has no merit. While it is true that the first part which requires that the alien shall secure an employment permit from the Mayor involves the exercise of discretion and judgment in the processing and approval or disapproval of applications for employment permits and therefore is regulatory in character the second part which requires the payment of P50.00 as employee's fee is not regulatory but a revenue measure. There is no logic or justification in exacting P50.00 from aliens who have been cleared for employment. It is obvious that the purpose of the ordinance is to raise money under the guise of regulation. The ordinances purpose is clearly to raise money under the guise of regulation by exacting P50 from aliens who have been cleared for employment. The amount is unreasonable and excessive because it fails to consider difference in situation among aliens required to pay it, i.e. being casual, permanent, part-time, rankandfile or executive. The Ordinance was declared invalid as it is arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable, being applied only to aliens who are thus deprived of their rights to life, liberty and property and therefore violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. Further,

VILLEGAS v. HIU CHIONG TSAI PAO HO G.R. No. L-29646, November 10, 1978 FACTS: On February 22, 1968, the Municipal Board of Manila passed City Ordinance No. 6537. The said city ordinance was also signed by then Manila Mayor Antonio J. Villegas (Villegas). Section 1 of the said city ordinance prohibits aliens from being employed or to engage or participate in any position or occupation or business enumerated

the ordinance does not lay down any criterion or standard to guide the Mayor in the exercise of his discretion, thus conferring upon the mayor arbitrary and unrestricted powers. ] Apostolic Prefect of Mountain Province vs. City Treasurer of Baguio City GR 47252, 18 April 1941 En Banc, Imperial (J): 4 concur Facts: The Apostolic Prefect is a corporation sole, of religious character, organized under the Philippine laws, and with residence in Baguio, The City imposed a special assessment against properties within its territorial jurisdiction, including those of the Apostolic Prefect, which benefits from its drainage and sewerage system. The Apostolic Prefect contends that its properties should be free of tax. Issue: Whether the Apostolic Prefect, as a religious entity, is exempt from the payment of the special assessment. Held: In its broad meaning, tax includes both general taxes and special assessment. Yet actually, there is a recognized distinction between them in that assessment is confined to local impositions upon property for the payment of the cost of public improvements in its immediate vicinity and levied with reference to special benefits to the property assessed. A special assessment is not, strictly speaking, a tax; and neither the decree nor the Constitution exempt the Apostolic Prefect from payment of said special assessment. Furthermore, arguendo that exemption may encompass such assessment, the Apostolic Prefect cannot claim exemption as it has not proven the property in question is used exclusively for religious purposes; but that it appears that the same is being used to other non-religious purposes. Thus, the Apostolic Prefect is required to pay the special assessment.

Mambulao Lumber Company paid the Government a total of P9,127.50 as reforestation charges. Having found liable for an aggregate amount of P4,802.37 for forest charges, it contended that since the Republic (Government) has not made use of the reforestation charges for reforesting the denuded area of the land covered by the companys license, the Republic should refund said amount or, if it cannot be refunded, at least the company should be compensated with what it owed the Republic for reforestation charges.

ISSUE: Whether taxes may be subject of set-off or compensation. HELD: Internal revenue taxes, such as forest charges, cannot be the subject of set-off or compensation. 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 subject of recoupment since they do not arise out of the contract or transaction sued on. Taxes are not in the nature of contracts between the parties but grow out of a 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.

Domingo vs Garlitos GR L-18993 29 June 1963 FACTS: In Domingo vs. Moscoso (106 PHIL 1138), the Supreme Court declared as final and executory the order of the Court of First Instance of Leyte for the payment of estate and inheritance taxes, charges and penalties amounting to P40,058.55 by the Estate of the late Walter Scott Price. The petition for execution filed by the fiscal, however, was denied by the lower court. The Court held that the execution is unjustified as the Government itself is indebted to the Estate for 262,200; and ordered the amount of

Republic v. Mambulao lumber GR L-17725 28 February 1962

FACTS:

inheritance taxes be deducted from the Governments indebtedness to the Estate. ISSUE: Whether a tax and a debt may be compensated. HELD: 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 by a corresponding law (RA 2700). Under the 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 as well as fully liquidated. Compensation, therefore, takes place by operation of law, in accordance with Article 1279 and 1290 of the Civil Code, and both debts are extinguished to the concurrent amount. Held: It is proper. Compensation/set-off of taxes may happen by operation of law when both debts are due and demandable. 1. The ordinary procedure to settle claims before an estate is not a petition for execution, but by presenting a claim before the probate court.a. Aldamiz vs. Judge of CFI Mindoro- 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 may issue execution if circumstances require" (Rule 89, section 6; see also Rule 74, Section 4; Emphasis supplied.)b. Legal basis is the fact that the properties belonging to the state are under custodia legis, which continues until said properties have been distributed amongthe heirs.2. Court having jurisdiction also found that the claim of the estate has been recognized by the govt and has already appropriated the corresponding amount. 3. Claim of the Govt

for inheritance taxes against the estate is due and demandable. The claim of the estate against the Govt is also due, demandable and is 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.

Pascual vs. Sec of Public works FACTS: On August 31, 1954, petitioner Wenceslao Pascual, as Provincial Governor of Rizal, instituted this action for declaratory relief, with injunction, upon the ground that Republic Act No. 920, entitled "An Act Appropriating Funds for Public Works", approved on June 20, 1953, an item of P85,000.00, "for the construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement" of "Pasig feeder road terminals"; that, at the time of the passage and approval of said Act, the aforementioned feeder roads were "nothing but projected and planned subdivision roads, not yet constructed, within the Antonio Subdivision situated at Pasig, Rizal" which projected feeder roads "do not connect any government property or any important premises to the main highway"; that the aforementioned Antonio Subdivision were private properties of respondent Jose C. Zulueta, who, at the time of the passage and approval of said Act, was a member of the Senate of the Philippines; that on May 29, 1953, respondent Zulueta, addressed a letter to the Municipal Council of Pasig, Rizal, offering to donate said projected feeder roads to the municipality of Pasig, Rizal; that, on June 13, 1953, the offer was accepted by the council, subject to the condition "that the donor would submit a plan of the said roads and agree to change the names of two of them"; that no deed of donation in favor of the municipality of Pasig was, however, executed; that on July 10, 1953, respondent Zulueta wrote another letter to said council, calling attention to the approval of Republic Act No. 920, and the sum of P85,000.00 appropriated therein for the construction of the projected feeder roads in question; that the municipal council of Pasig endorsed said letter of respondent Zulueta to the District Engineer of Rizal, who, up to the present "has not made any endorsement thereon"; that inasmuch as the projected feeder roads in question were private property at the time of the passage and approval of Republic Act No. 920, the appropriation of P85,000.00 therein made, for the construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement of said projected feeder roads, was "illegal and, therefore, void ab initio"; that said appropriation of

P85,000.00 was made by Congress because its members were made to believe that the projected feeder roads in question were "public roads and not private streets of a private subdivision'"; that, "in order to give a semblance of legality, when there is absolutely none, to the aforementioned appropriation", respondent Zulueta executed, on December 12, 1953, while he was a member of the Senate of the Philippines, an alleged deed of donationcopy of which is annexed to the petition of the four (4) parcels of land constituting said projected feeder roads, in favor of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines; that said alleged deed of donation was, on the same date, accepted by the then Executive Secretary; that being subject to an onerous condition, said donation partook of the nature of a contract; that, as such, said donation violated the provision of our fundamental law prohibiting members of Congress from being directly or indirectly financially interested in any contract with the Government, and, hence, is unconstitutional, as well as null and void ab initio, for the construction of the projected feeder roads in question with public funds would greatly enhance or increase the value of the aforementioned subdivision of respondent Zulueta, "aside from relieving him from the burden of constructing his subdivision streets or roads at his own expense"; that the construction of said projected feeder roads was then being undertaken by the Bureau of Public Highways; and that, unless restrained by the court, the respondents would continue to execute, comply with, follow and implement the aforementioned illegal provision of law, "to the irreparable damage, detriment and prejudice not only to the petitioner but to the Filipino nation." ISSUE: Whether or not the statute is unconstitutional and void? HELD: "It is a general rule that the legislature is without power to appropriate public revenue for anything but a public purpose. * * * It is the essential character of the direct object of the expenditure which must determine its validity as justifying a tax, and not the magnitude of the interests to be affected nor the degree to which the general advantage of the community, and thus the public welfare, may be ultimately benefited by their promotion. Incidental advantage to the public or to the state, which results from the promotion of private interests and the prosperity of private enterprises or business, does not justify their aid by the use of public money." (25 R.L.C. pp. 398-400; Italics supplied.)

The rule is set forth in Corpus Juris Secundum in the following language: "In accordance with the rule that the taxing power must be exercised for public purposes only, money raised by taxation can be expended only for public purposes and not for the advantage of private individuals." Explaining the reason underlying said rule, Corpus Juris Secundum states: "Generally, under the express or implied provisions of the constitution, public funds may be used only for a public purpose. The right of the legislature to appropriate funds is correlative with its right to tax, and, under constitutional provisions against taxation except for public purposes and prohibiting the collection of a tax for one purpose and the devotion thereof to another purpose, no appropriation of state funds can be made for other than a public purpose. * ** "The test of the constitutionality of a statute requiring the use of public funds is whether the statute is designed to promote the public interests, as opposed to the furtherance of the advantage of individuals, although each advantage to individuals might incidentally serve the public. * * * ." (81 C.J.S. p. 1147; italics supplied.) The validity of a statute depends upon the powers of Congress at the time of its passage or approval, not upon events occurring, or acts performed, subsequently thereto. Referring to the P85,000.00 appropriation for the projected feeder roads in question, the legality thereof depended upon whether said roads were public or private property when the bill, which, later on, became Republic Act No. 920, was passed by Congress, or, when said bill was approved by the President and the disbursement of said sum became effective, or on June 20, 1953. Inasmuch as the land on which the projected feeder roads were to be constructed belonged then to respondent Zulueta, the result is that said appropriation sought a private purpose, and, hence, was null and void.4 The donation to the Government, over five (5) months after the approval and effectivity of said Act, made, according to the petition, for the purpose of giving a "semblance of legality", or legalizing, the appropriation in question, did not cure its aforementioned basic defect. Consequently, a judicial nullification of said donation need not precede the declaration of unconstitutionality of said appropriation.

Lutz vs. Araneta Facts: Walter Lutz, as the Judicial Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Antonio Jayme Ledesma, seeks to recover from J. Antonio Araneta, the Collector of Internal Revenue, the sum of money paid by the estate as taxes, pursuant to the Sugar Adjustment Act. Under Section 3 of said Act, taxes are levied on the owners or persons in control of the lands devoted to the cultivation of sugar cane. Furthermore, Section 6 states all the collections made under said Act shall be for aid and support of the sugar industry exclusively. Lutz contends that such purpose is not a matter of public concern hence making the tax levied for that cause unconstitutional and void. The Court of First Instance dismissed his petition, thus this appeal before the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether or Not the tax levied under the Sugar Adjustment Act ( Commonwealth Act 567) is unconstitutional. Held: The tax levied under the Sugar Adjustment Act is constitutional. The tax under said Act is levied with a regulatory purpose, to provide means for the rehabilitation and stabilization of the threatened sugar industry. Since sugar production is one of the great industries of our nation, its promotion, protection, and advancement, therefore redounds greatly to the general welfare. Hence, said objectives of the Act is a public concern and is therefore constitutional. It follows that the Legislature may determine within reasonable bounds what is necessary for its protection and expedient for its promotion. If objectives 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 with the implement of the states police power. In addition, it is only rational that the taxes be obtained from those that will directly benefit from it. Therefore, the tax levied under the Sugar Adjustment Act is held to be constitutional.

prohibition on May 27, 2005 questioning the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties, Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods, and Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties. These questioned provisions contain a uniformp ro v is o authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after specified conditions have been satisfied. Petitioners argue that the law is unconstitutional.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not there is a violation of Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution. 2. Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative power in violation of Article VI Sec 28(2) of the Constitution. 3. Whether or not there is a violation of the due process and equal protection under Article III Sec. 1 of the Constitution. RULING: 1. Since there is no question that the revenue bill exclusively originated in the House of Representatives, the Senate was acting within its constitutional power to introduce amendments to the House bill when it included provisions in Senate Bill No. 1950 amending corporate income taxes, percentage, and excise and franchise taxes.

2. There is no undue delegation of legislative power but only of the discretion as to the execution of a law. This is constitutionally permissible. Congress does not abdicate its functions or unduly delegate power when it describes what job must be done, who must do it, and what is the scope of his authority; in our complex economy that is frequently the only way in which the legislative process can go forward.

ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita G.R. No. 168056 September 1, 2005
FACTS: Before R.A. No. 9337 took effect, petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition for

3. The power of the State to make reasonable and natural classifications for the purposes of taxation has long been established. Whether it relates to the subject of taxation, the kind of property, the rates to be levied, or the amounts to be raised, the methods of assessment, valuation and collection, the States

power is entitled to presumption of validity. As a rule, the judiciary will not interfere with such power absent a clear showing of unreasonableness, discrimination, or arbitrariness.

FACTS: The Provincial Assessor of Abra levied a tax assessment on the properties of respondent Roman Catholic Bishop of Bangued. An action for declaratory relief by private respondent Roman Catholic Bishop of Bangued desirous of being exempted from a real estate tax followed by a summary judgment granting such exemption, without even hearing the side of petitioner. In the rather vigorous language of the Acting Provincial Fiscal, as counsel for petitioner, respondent Judge "virtually ignored the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court; . . . wantonly violated the rights of petitioner to due process, by giving due course to the petition of private respondent for declaratory relief, and thereafter without allowing petitioner to answer and without any hearing, adjudged the case; all in total disregard of basic laws of procedure and basic provisions of due process in the constitution, thereby indicating a failure to grasp and understand the law, which goes into the competence of the Honorable Presiding Judge." The latter filed a petition for declaratory relief on the ground that it is exempted from payment of real estate taxes, its properties being actually, directly and exclusively used for religious or charitable purposes as sources of support for the bishop, the parish priest and his helpers. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss but the same was denied. After conducting a summary hearing, respondent Judge granted the exemption without hearing the side of petitioner. Hence, this present petition for certiorari and mandamus alleging denial of procedural due process. ISSUE: Whether the present requirement of actual exclusive and direct use of property for charitable and religious purposes is material. HELD: Under Article VI, Section 22, paragraph 3 of the 1935 Constitution: "Cemeteries, churches, and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, and all lands, building, and improvements used exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation." The present Constitution (Article VIII, Section 17, paragraph 3) added "charitable institutions, mosques, and nonprofit cemeteries" and required that for the exemption of "lands, buildings, and improvements," they should not only be "exclusively" but also "actually" and "directly" used for religious or charitable purposes. The Constitution is worded

Pepsi cola vs. City of Butuan Facts: Ordinance 110 was enacted by the City of Butuan imposing a tax of P0.10 per case of 24 bottles of softdrinks or carbonated drinks. The tax was imposed upon dealers engeged in selling softdrinks or carbonated drinks. When Ordinance 110, the tax was imposed upon an agent or consignee of any person, association, partnership, company or corporation engaged in selling softdrinks or carbonated drinks, with agent or consignee being particularly defined on the inserted provision Section 3-A. In effect, merchants engaged in the sale of softdrinks, etc. are not subject to the tax unless they are agents or consignees of another dealer who must be one engaged in business outside the City. PepsiCola Bottling Co. filed suit to recover sums paid by it to the city pursuant to the Ordinance, which it claims to be null and void. Issue: Whether the Ordinance is discriminatory. Held: The Ordinance, as amended, is discriminatory since only sales by agents or consignees of outside dealers would be subject to the tax. Sales by local dealers, not acting for or on behalf of other merchants, regardless of the volume of their sales , and even if the same exceeded those made by said agents or consignees of producers or merchants established outside the city, would be exempt from the tax. The classification made in the exercise of the authority to tax, to be valid must be reasonable, which would be satisfied if the classification is based upon substantial distinctions which makes real differences; these are germane to the purpose of legislation or ordinance; the classification applies not only to present conditions but also to future conditions substantially identical to those of the present; and the classification applies equally to all those who belong to the same class . These conditions are not fully met by the ordinance in question.

PROVINCE OF ABRA vs. HONORABLE HAROLD M. HERNANDO G.R. No. L-49336. August 31, 1981.

differently. The change should not be ignored. It must be duly taken into consideration. Petitioner Province of Abra is therefore fully justified in invoking the protection of procedural due process. If there is any case where proof is necessary to demonstrate that there is compliance with the constitutional provision that allows an exemption, this is it. Instead, respondent Judge accepted at its face the allegation of private respondent. All that was alleged in the petition for declaratory relief filed by private respondents, after mentioning certain parcels of land owned by it, are that they are used "actually, directly and exclusively" as sources of support of the parish priest and his helpers and also of private respondent Bishop. In the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of petitioner Province of Abra, the objection was based primarily on the lack of jurisdiction, as the validity of a tax assessment may be questioned before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals and not with a court. There was also mention of a lack of a cause of action, but only because, in its view, declaratory relief is not proper, as there had been breach or violation of the right of government to assess and collect taxes on such property. It clearly appears, therefore, that in failing to accord a hearing to petitioner Province of Abra and deciding the case immediately in favor of private respondent, respondent Judge failed to abide by the constitutional command of procedural due process. Victorias Milling Co. vs. Municipality of Victorias GR L-21183, 27 September 1968 En Banc, Sanchez (J): 9 concur Facts: Ordinance 1 (1956) was approved by the municipal council of Victorias by way of an amendment to 2 municipal ordinances separately imposing license taxes on operators of sugar centrals and sugar refineries. The changes were: (1) with respect to sugar centrals, by increasing the rates of license taxes; and (2) as to sugar refineries, by increasing the rates of license taxes as well as the range of graduated schedule of annual output capacity. Victorias Milling questioned the validity of Ordinance 1 as it, among others, allegedly singled out Victorias Milling Co. since it is the only operator of a sugar central and a sugar refinery within the jurisdiction of the municipality. Issue: Whether Ordinance 1 is discriminatory.

Held: The ordinance does not single out Victorias as the only object of the ordinance but is made to apply to any sugar central or sugar refinery which may happen to operate in the municipality. The fact that Victorias Milling is actually the sole operator of a sugar central and a sugar refinery does not make the ordinance discriminatory. The ordinance is unlike that in Ormoc Sugar Company vs. Municipal Board of Ormoc City, which specifically spelled out Ormoc Sugar as the subject of the taxation, the name of the company herein was never mentioned in the ordinance. Shell Co. vs. Vano GR L-6093, 24 February 1954 En Banc, Padilla (J): 10 concur Facts: The municipal council of Cordova, Cebu adopted Ordinance 10 (1946) imposing an annual tax of P150 on occupation or the exercise of the privilege of installation manager; Ordinance 9 (1947) imposing an annual tax of P40 for local deposits in drums of combustible and inflammable materials and an annual tax of P200 for tin can factories; and Ordinance 11 (1948) imposing an annual tax of P150 on tin can factories having a maximum annual output capacity of 30,000 tin cans. Shell Co., a foreign corporation, filed suit for the refund of the taxes paid by it, on the ground that the ordinances imposing such taxes are ultra vires. Issue: Whether Ordinance 10 is discriminatory and hostile because there is no other person in the locality who exercise such designation or occupation. Held: The fact that there is no other person in the locality who exercises such a designation or calling does not make the ordinance discriminatory and hostile, inasmuch as it is and will be applicable to any person or firm who exercises such calling or occupation named or designated as installation manager.

Ormoc Sugar vs. Treasurer of Ormoc City GR L23794, 17 February 1968 En Banc, Bangzon JP (J): 9 concur

Facts: In 1964, the Municipal Board of Ormoc City passed Ordinance 4, imposing on any and all productions of centrifuga sugar milled at the Ormoc Sugar Co. Inc. in Ormoc City a municpal tax equivalent to 1% per export sale to the United States and other foreign countries. The company paid the said tax under protest. It subsequently filed a case seeking to invalidate the ordinance for being unconstitutional. Issue: Whether the ordinance violates the equal protection clause. Held: The Ordinance taxes only centrifugal sugar produced and exported by the Ormoc Sugar Co. Inc. and none other. At the time of the taxing ordinances enacted, the company was the only sugar central in Ormoc City. 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 the present company, from 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 the company as the entity to be levied upon.

used for educational purposes, reasonable emphasis has always been made that exemption extends to facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the main purposes. While the second floors use, as residence of the director, is incidental to education; the lease of the first floor cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered incidental to the purposes of education. The test of exemption from taxation is the use of the property for purposes mentioned in the Constititution.

Herrera vs. Quezon City Board of Assessment Appeals GR L-15270, 30 September 1961First Division, Concepcion (J): 6 concur Facts: In 1952, the Director of the Bureau of Hospitals authorized Jose V. Herrera and Ester Ochangco Herrera to establish and operate the St. Catherines Hospital. In 1953, the Herreras sent a letter to the Quezon City Assessor requesting exemption from payment of real estate tax on the hospital, stating that the same was established for charitable and humanitarian purposes and not for commercial gain. The exemption was granted effective years 1953 to 1955. In 1955, however, the Assessor reclassified the properties from exempt to taxable effective 1956, as it was ascertained that out 32 beds in the hospital, 12 of which are for pay-patients. A school of midwifery is also operated within the premises of the hospital. Issue: Whether St. Catherines Hospital is exempt from reallty tax. Held: The admission of pay-patients does not detract from the charitable character of a hospital, if all its funds are devoted exclusively to the maintenance of the institution as a public charity. The exemption in favor of property used exclusively for charitable or educational purpose is not limited to property actually indispensable therefore, but extends to facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of said purpose, such as in the case of hospitals -- a school for training nurses; a nurses home; property used to provide housing facilities for interns, resident doctors, superintendents and other members of the

Abra Valley College vs. AquinoGR L-39086, 15 June 1988Second Division, Paras (J): 4 concur Facts: Abra Valley College rents out the ground floor of its college building to Northern Marketing Corporation while the second floor thereof is used by the Director of the College for residential purposes. The municipal and provincial treasurers served upon the College a notice of seizure and later a notice of saledue to the alleged failure of the College to pay real estate taxes and penalties thereon. The school filed suit to annul said notices, claiming that it is tax-exempt. Issue: Whether the College is exempt from taxes Held: While the Court allows a more liberal and nonrestrictive interpretation of the phrase exclusively

hospital staff; and recreational facilities for student nurses, interns and residents. Within the purview of the Constitution, St. Catherines Hospital is a charitable institution exempt from taxation.