gaston v. republic gr no. 77194 march 12, 1988 de borja v. gella l-18330 july 31, 1968 abs-cbn v.

court of tax appeal l-52306 oct 12, 1981 cir v. santos gr no 119252 aug 18, 1997 coconut... v. torres gr no 132527 july 29, 2005 cir v. burroughs l-66653

P. D. No. 388, promulgated on February 2,1974, which created the PHILSUCOM, provided for the collection of a Stabilization Fund as follows:

G.R. No. L-77194 March 15, 1988

VIRGILIO GASTON, HORTENCIA STARKE, ROMEO GUANZON, OSCAR VILLANUEVA, JOSE ABELLO, REMO RAMOS, CAROLINA LOPEZ, JESUS ISASI, MANUEL LACSON, JAVIER LACSON, TITO TAGARAO, EDUARDO SUATENGCO, AUGUSTO LLAMAS, RODOLFO SIASON, PACIFICO MAGHARI, JR., JOSE JAMANDRE, AURELIO GAMBOA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, PHILIPPINE SUGAR COMMISSION, and SUGAR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION, respondents, ANGEL H. SEVERINO, JR., GLICERIO JAVELLANA, GLORIA P. DE LA PAZ, JOEY P. DE LA PAZ, ET AL., and NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE PLANTERS, intervenors.

SEC. 7. Capitalization, Special Fund of the Commission, Development and Stabilization Fund. There is hereby established a fund for the commission for the purpose of financing the growth and development of the sugar industry and all its components, stabilization of the domestic market including the foreign market to be administered in trust by the Commission and deposited in the Philippine National Bank derived in the manner herein below cited from the following sources:

a. Stabilization fund shall be collected as provided for in the various provisions of this Decree.

b. Stabilization fees shall be collected from planters and millers in the amount of Two (P2.00) Pesos for every picul produced and milled for a period of five years from the approval of this Decree and One (Pl.00) Peso for every picul produced and milled every year thereafter.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

Petitioners are sugar producers, sugarcane planters and millers, who have come to this Court in their individual capacities and in representation of other sugar producers, planters and millers, said to be so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court although the subject matter of the present controversy is of common interest to all sugar producers, whether parties in this action or not.

Provided: That fifty (P0.50) centavos per picul of the amount levied on planters, millers and traders under Section 4(c) of this Decree will be used for the payment of salaries and wages of personnel, fringe benefits and allowances of officers and employees for the purpose of accomplishing and employees for the purpose of accomplishing the efficient performance of the duties of the Commission.

Respondent Philippine Sugar Commission (PHILSUCOM, for short) was formerly the government office tasked with the function of regulating and supervising the sugar industry until it was superseded by its co-respondent Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA, for brevity) under Executive Order No. 18 on May 28, 1986. Although said Executive Order abolished the PHILSUCOM, its existence as a juridical entity was mandated to continue for three (3) more years "for the purpose of prosecuting and defending suits by or against it and enables it to settle and close its affairs, to dispose of and convey its property and to distribute its assets."

Provided, further: That said amount shall constitute a lien on the sugar quedan and/or warehouse receipts and shall be paid immediately by the planters and mill companies, sugar centrals and refineries to the Commission. (paragraphing and bold supplied).

Section 7 of P.D. No. 388 does provide that the stabilization fees collected "shall be administered in trust by the Commission." However, while the element of an intent to create a trust is present, a resulting trust in favor of the sugar producers, millers and planters cannot be said to have ensued because the presumptive intention of the parties is not reasonably ascertainable from the language of the statute itself.

Respondent Republic Planters Bank (briefly, the Bank) is a commercial banking corporation. The doctrine of resulting trusts is founded on the presumed intention of the parties; and as a general rule, it arises where, and only where such may be reasonably presumed to be the intention of the parties, as determined from the facts and circumstances existing at the time of the transaction out of which it is sought to be established (89 C.J.S. 947).

Angel H. Severino, Jr., et al., who are sugarcane planters planting and milling their sugarcane in different mill districts of Negros Occidental, were allowed to intervene by the Court, since they have common cause with petitioners and respondents having interposed no objection to their intervention. Subsequently, on January 14,1988, the National Federation of Sugar Planters (NFSP) also moved to intervene, which the Court allowed on February 16,1988.

Petitioners and Intervenors have come to this Court praying for a Writ of mandamus commanding respondents:

TO IMPLEMENT AND ACCOMPLISH THE PRIVATIZATION OF REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK BY THE TRANSFER AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE SHARES OF STOCK IN THE SAID BANK; NOW HELD BY AND STILL CARRIED IN THE NAME OF THE PHILIPPINE SUGAR COMMISSION, TO THE SUGAR PRODUCERS, PLANTERS AND MILLERS, WHO ARE THE TRUE BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE 761,416 COMMON SHARES VALUED AT P36,548.000.00, AND 53,005,045 PREFERRED SHARES (A, B & C) WITH A TOTAL PAR VALUE OF P254,424,224.72, OR A TOTAL INVESTMENT OF P290,972,224.72, THE SAID INVESTMENT HAVING BEEN FUNDED BY THE DEDUCTION OF Pl.00 PER PICUL FROM SUGAR PROCEEDS OF THE SUGAR PRODUCERS COMMENCING THE YEAR 1978-79 UNTIL THE PRESENT AS STABILIZATION FUND PURSUANT TO P.D. # 388. Respondent Bank does not take issue with either petitioners or its correspondents as it has no beneficial or equitable interest that may be affected by the ruling in this Petition, but welcomes the filing of the Petition since it will settle finally the issue of legal ownership of the questioned shares of stock.

No implied trust in favor of the sugar producers either can be deduced from the imposition of the levy. "The essential Idea of an implied trust involves a certain antagonism between the cestui que trust and the trustee even when the trust has not arisen out of fraud nor out of any transaction of a fraudulent or immoral character (65 CJ 222). It is not clearly shown from the statute itself that the PHILSUCOM imposed on itself the obligation of holding the stabilization fund for the benefit of the sugar producers. It must be categorically demonstrated that the very administrative agency which is the source of such regulation would place a burden on itself (Batchelder v. Central Bank of the Philippines, L-25071, July 29,1972,46 SCRA 102, citing People v. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640 [1954]). Neither can petitioners place reliance on the history of respondents Bank. They recite that at the beginning, the Bank was owned by the Roman-Rojas Group. Because it underwent difficulties early in the year 1978, Mr. Roberto S. Benedicto, then Chairman of the PHILSUCOM, submitted a proposal to the Central Bank for the rehabilitation of the Bank. The Central Bank acted favorably on the proposal at the meeting of the Monetary Board on March 31, 1978 subject to the infusion of fresh capital by the Benedicto Group. Petitioners maintain that this infusion of fresh capital was accomplished, not by any capital investment by Mr. Benedicto, but by PHILSUCOM, which set aside the proceeds of the P1.00 per picul stabilization fund to pay for its subscription in shares of stock of respondent Bank. It is petitioners' submission that all shares were placed in PHILSUCOM's name only out of convenience and necessity and that they are the true and beneficial owners thereof.

Respondents PHILSUCOM and SRA, for their part, squarely traverse the petition arguing that no trust results from Section 7 of P.D. No. 388; that the stabilization fees collected are considered government funds under the Government Auditing Code; that the transfer of shares of stock from PHILSUCOM to the sugar producers would be irregular, if not illegal; and that this suit is barred by laches.

The Solicitor General aptly summarizes the basic issues thus: (1) whether the stabilization fees collected from sugar planters and millers pursuant to Section 7 of P.D. No. 388 are funds in trust for them, or public funds; and (2) whether shares of stock in respondent Bank paid for with said stabilization fees belong to the PHILSUCOM or to the different sugar planters and millers from whom the fees were collected or levied.

In point of fact, we cannot see our way clear to upholding petitioners' position that the investment of the proceeds from the stabilization fund in subscriptions to the capital stock of the Bank were being made for and on their behalf. That could have been clarified by the Trust Agreement, dated May 28, 1986, entered into between PHILSUCOM, as "Trustor" acting through Mr. Fred J. Elizalde as Officer-in-Charge, and respondent RPB- Trust Department' as "Trustee," acknowledging that PHILSUCOM holds said shares for and in behalf of the sugar producers," the latter "being the true and beneficial owners thereof." The Agreement, however, did not get off the ground because it failed to receive the approval of the PHILSUCOM Board of Commissioners as required in the Agreement itself.

The SRA, which succeeded PHILSUCOM, neither approved the Agreement because of the adverse opinion of the SRA, Resident Auditor, dated June 25,1986, which was aimed by the Chairman of the Commission on Audit, on January 26,1987.

On February 19, 1987, the SRA, resolved to revoke the Trust Agreement "in the light of the ruling of the Commission on Audit that the aforementioned Agreement is of doubtful validity."

David Guevara for petitioner-appellee. Office of the Solicitor General for respondent-appellant Treasurer of the Philippines. Assistant City Fiscal H. A. Avendano for respondent-appellant Treasurer of Pasay City.

From the legal standpoint, we find basis for the opinion of the Commission on Audit reading:

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

That the government, PHILSUCOM or its successor-ininterest, Sugar Regulatory Administration, in particular, owns and stocks. While it is true that the collected stabilization fees were set aside by PHILSUCOM to pay its subscription to RPB, it did not collect said fees for the account of the sugar producers. That stabilization fees are charges/levies on sugar produced and milled which accrued to PHILSUCOM under PD 338, as amended. ... The stabilization fees collected are in the nature of a tax, which is within the power of the State to impose for the promotion of the sugar industry (Lutz vs. Araneta, 98 Phil. 148). They constitute sugar liens (Sec. 7[b], P.D. No. 388). The collections made accrue to a "Special Fund," a "Development and Stabilization Fund," almost Identical to the "Sugar Adjustment and Stabilization Fund" created under Section 6 of Commonwealth Act 567. 1 The tax collected is not in a pure exercise of the taxing power. It is levied with a regulatory purpose, to provide means for the stabilization of the sugar industry. The levy is primarily in the exercise of the police power of the State (Lutz vs. Araneta, supra.).

Jose de Borja has been delinquent in the payment of his real estate taxes since 1958 for properties located in the City of Manila and Pasay City and has offered to pay them with two negotiable, certificates of indebtedness Nos. 3064 and 3065 in the amounts of P793.40 and P717.69, respectively. Borja was, however, a mere assignee of the aforesaid negotiable certificates, the applicants for backpay rights covered by them being respectively Rafael Vizcaya and Pablo Batario Luna. The offers to pay the estate taxes in question were rejected by the city treasurers of both Manila and Pasay cities on the ground of their limited negotiability under Section 2, Republic Act No. 304, as amended by Republic Act 800, and in the case of the city treasurer of Manila on the further ground that he was ordered not to accept them by the city mayor, for which reason Borja was prompted to bring the question to the Treasurer of the Philippines who opined, among others, that the negotiable certificates cannot be accepted as payment of real estate taxes inasmuch as the law provides for their acceptance from their backpay holder only or the original applicant himself, but not his assignee. In his letter of April 29, 1960 to the Treasurer of the Philippines, however, Borja entertained hope that the certificates would be accepted for payment in view of the fact that they are already long past due and redeemable, but his hope was frustrated. So on June 30, 1960, Borja filed an action against the treasurers of both the City of Manila and Pasay City, as well as the Treasurer of the Philippines, to impel them to execute an act which the law allegedly requires them to perform, to wit: to accept the abovementioned certificates of indebtedness considering that they were already due and redeemable so as not to deprive him illegally of his privilege to pay his obligation to the government thru such means.

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. (Johnson vs. State ex rel. Marey, 128 So. 857, cited in Lutz vs. Araneta, supra). The stabilization fees in question are levied by the State upon sugar millers, planters and producers for a special purpose that of "financing the growth and development of the sugar industry and all its components, stabilization of the domestic market including the foreign market the fact that the State has taken possession of moneys pursuant to law is sufficient to constitute them state funds, even though they are held for a special purpose (Lawrence vs. American Surety Co., 263 Mich 586, 249 ALR 535, cited in 42 Am. Jur. Sec. 2, p. 718). Having been levied for a special purpose, the revenues collected are to be treated as a special fund, to be, in the language of the statute, "administered in trust' for the purpose intended. Once the purpose has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, is to be transferred to the general funds of the Government. That is the essence of the trust intended (See 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Sec. 29(3), lifted from the 1935 Constitution, Article VI, Sec. 23(l]). 2 The character of the Stabilization Fund as a special fund is emphasized by the fact that the funds are deposited in the Philippine National Bank and not in the Philippine Treasury, moneys from which may be paid out only in pursuance of an appropriation made by law (1987) Constitution, Article VI, Sec. 29[1],1973 Constitution, Article VIII, Sec. 18[l]). That the fees were collected from sugar producers, planters and millers, and that the funds were channeled to the purchase of shares of stock in respondent Bank do not convert the funds into a trust fired for their benefit nor make them the beneficial owners of the shares so purchased. It is but rational that the fees be collected from them since it is also they who are to be benefited from the expenditure of the funds derived from it. The investment in shares of respondent Bank is not alien to the purpose intended because of the Bank's character as a commodity bank for sugar conceived for the industry's growth and development. Furthermore, of note is the fact that one-half, (1/2) or PO.50 per picul, of the amount levied under P.D. No. 388 is to be utilized for the "payment of salaries and wages of personnel, fringe benefits and allowances of officers and employees of PHILSUCOM" thereby immediately negating the claim that the entire amount levied is in trust for sugar, producers, planters and millers.

Respondents in due time filed their answer setting up the reasons for their refusal to accept the certificates, and after the requisite trial was held, the court a quo rendered judgment the dispositive part of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the treasurers of the City of Manila and Pasay City, their agents and other persons acting in their behalf are hereby enjoined from including petitioner's properties in the payment of real estate, taxes, and to sell them at public auction and respondent Treasurer of the Philippines, and the treasurers of the City of Manila and Pasay City are hereby ordered to accept petitioner's Negotiable Certificates of Indebtedness Nos. 3064 and 3065 in the sums of P793.40 and P717.39 in payment of real estate taxes of his properties in the City of Manila and Pasay City, respectively, without costs. Respondents took this appeal on purely questions of law.1wph1.t

Reduced to bare essentials, the 12 errors assigned by appellants may be boiled down to the following: (a) has appellee the right to apply to the payment of his real estate taxes to the government of Manila and Pasay cities the certificates of indebtedness he holds while appellants have the correlative legal duty to accept the certificates in payment of said taxes?; (b) can compensation be invoked to extinguish appellee's real estate tax liability between the latter's obligation and the credit represented by said certificates of indebtedness?

Anent the first issue, the pertinent legal provision to be reckoned with is Section 2 of Republic Act No. 304, as amended by Republic Act No. 800, which in part reads:

To rule in petitioners' favor would contravene the general principle that revenues derived from taxes cannot be used for purely private purposes or for the exclusive benefit of private persons. The Stabilization Fund is to be utilized for the benefit of the entire sugar industry, "and all its components, stabilization of the domestic market," including the foreign market the industry being of vital importance to the country's economy and to national interest.

WHEREFORE, the Writ of mandamus is denied and the Petition hereby dismissed. No costs.

This Decision is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-18330

July 31, 1963

SEC. 2. The Treasurer of the Philippines shall, upon application, and within one year from the approval of this Act, and under such rules and regulations as may be promulgated by the Secretary of Finance, acknowledge and file requests for the recognition of the right to the salaries and wages as provided in section one hereof, and notice of such acknowledgment shall be issued to the applicant which shall state the total amount of such salaries or wages due to the applicant, and certify that it shall be redeemed by the Government of the Philippines within ten years from the date of their issuance without interest: Provided, that upon application . . . a certificate of indebtedness may be issued by the Treasurer of the Philippines covering the whole or part of the total salaries or wages the right to which has been duly acknowledged and recognized, provided that the face value of such certificate of indebtedness shall not exceed the amount that the applicant may need for the payment of (1) obligations subsisting at the time of the approval of this Act for which the applicant may directly be liable to the Government or to any of its branches or instrumentalities, or the corporations owned or controlled by the Government, or to any citizen of the Philippines, who may be willing to accept the same for such settlement; (2) his taxes; . . . and Provided, also, That any person who is not an alien, bank or other financial institution at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by Filipinos may, notwithstanding any provision of its charter, articles of incorporation, by-laws, or rules and regulations to the contrary, accept or discount at not more than three and one-half per centum per annum for ten years a negotiable certificate of indebtedness which shall be issued by the Treasurer of the Philippines upon application by a holder of a back pay acknowledgment. ....

JOSE DE BORJA, petitioner-appellee, vs. VICENTE G. GELLA, ET AL., respondents-appellants.

To begin with, it cannot be contended that appellants are in duty bound to accept the negotiable certificates of indebtedness held by appellee in payment of his real estate taxes for the simple reason that they were not obligations subsisting at the time of the approval of Republic Act No. 304 which took effect on June 18, 1948. It

should be noted that the real estate taxes in question have reference to those due in 1958 and subsequent years. The law is explicit that in order that a certificate may be used in payment of an obligation the same must be subsisting at the time of its approval even if we hold that a tax partakes of this character, neither can it be contended that appellee can compel the government to accept the alleged certificates of indebtedness in payment of his real estate taxes under proviso No. 2 abovequoted also for the reason that in order that such payment may be allowed the tax must be owed by the applicant himself . This is the correct implication that may be drawn from the use by the law of the words "his taxes". Verily, the right to use the backpay certificate in settlement of taxes is given only to the applicant and not to any holder of any negotiable certificate to whom the law only gives the right to have it discounted by a Filipino citizen or corporation under certain limitations. Here appellee is not himself the applicant of the certificate, in question. He is merely an assignee thereof, or a subsequent holder whose right is at most to have it discounted upon maturity or to negotiate it in the meantime. A fortiori, it may be included that, not having the right to use said certificates to pay his taxes, appellee cannot compel appellants to accept them as he requests in the present petition for mandamus. As a consequence, we cannot but hold that mandamus does not lie against appellants because they have in no way neglected to perform an act enjoined upon them by law as a duty, nor have they unlawfully excluded appellee from the use or enjoyment of a right to which be is entitled.1 We are aware of the cases2 cited by the court a quo wherein the government banking institutions were ordered to accept the backpay certificates of petitioners in payment of their indebtedness to them, but they are not here in point because in the cases mentioned the petitioners were applicants and original holders of the corresponding backpay certificates. Here appellee is not. With regard to the second issue, i.e., whether compensation can be invoked insofar as the two obligations are concerned, Articles 1278 and 1279 of the new Civil Code provide:

This is a Petition for Review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 2809, dated November 29, 1979, which affirmed the assessment by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, dated April 16, 1971, of a deficiency withholding income tax against petitioner, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, for the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 in the respective amounts of P75,895.24, P99,239.18, P128,502.00 and P222, 260.64, or a total of P525,897.06. During the period pertinent to this case, petitioner corporation was engaged in the business of telecasting local as well as foreign films acquired from foreign corporations not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines. for which petitioner paid rentals after withholding income tax of 30%of one-half of the film rentals.

In so far as the income tax on non-resident corporations is concerned, section 24 (b) of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 2343 dated June 20, 1959, used to provide:

(b) Tax on foreign corporations.(1) Non-resident corporations. There shall be levied, collected, and paid for each taxable year, in lieu of the tax imposed by the preceding paragraph, upon the amount received by every foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines, from an sources within the Philippines, as interest, dividends, rents, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits, and income, a tax equal to thirty per centum of such amount. (Emphasis supplied)

On April 12, 1961, in implementation of the aforequoted provision, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued General Circular No. V-334 reading thus: ART. 1278. Compensation shall take place when two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other. In connection with Section 24 (b) of Tax Code, the amendment introduced by Republic Act No. 2343, under which an income tax equal to 30% is levied upon the amount received by every foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines from all sources within this country as interest, dividends, rents, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits, and income, it has been determined that the tax is still imposed on income derived from capital, or labor, or both combined, in accordance with the basic principle of income taxation (Sec. 39, Income Tax Regulations), and that a mere return of capital or investment is not income (Par. 5,06, 1 Mertens Law of Federal 'Taxation). Since according to the findings of the Special Team who inquired into business of the non-resident foreign film distributors, the distribution or exhibition right on a film is invariably acquired for a consideration, either for a lump sum or a percentage of the film rentals, whether from a parent company or an independent outside producer, apart of the receipts of a non-resident foreign film distributor derived from said film represents, therefore, a return of investment.

ART. 1279. In order that compensation may be proper, it is necessary: (1) That each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other;

(2) That both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the things due are consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated;

(3) That the two debts be due;

(4) That they two liquidated and demandable;

(5) That over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and communicated in due time to the debtor.

It is clear from the above legal provisions that compensation cannot be effected with regard to the two obligations in question. In the first place, the debtor insofar as the certificates of indebtedness are concerned is the Republic of the Philippines, whereas the real estate taxes owed by appellee are due to the City of Manila and Pasay City, each one of which having a distinct and separate personality from our Republic. With regard to the certificates, the creditor is the appellee while the debtor is the Republic of the Philippines. And with regard to the taxes, the creditors are the City of Manila and Pasay City while the debtor is the appellee. It appears, therefore, that each one of the obligors concerning the two obligations is not at the same time the principal creditor of the other. It cannot also be said for certain that the certificates are already due. Although on their faces the certificates issued to appellee state that they are redeemable on June 18, 1958, yet the law does not say that they are redeemable from its approval on June 18, 1948 but "within ten years from the date of issuance" of the certificates. There is no certainty, therefore, when the certificates are really redeemable within the meaning of the law. Since the requisites for the accomplishment of legal compensation cannot be fulfilled, the latter cannot take place with regard to the two obligations as found by the court a quo.

xxx xxx xxx

4. The local distributor should withhold 30% of one-half of the film rentals paid to the non-resident foreign film distributor and pay the same to this office in accordance with law unless the non- resident foreign film distributor makes a prior settlement of its income tax liability. (Emphasis ours).

Pursuant to the foregoing, petitioner dutifully withheld and turned over to the Bureau of Internal Revenue the amount of 30% of one-half of the film rentals paid by it to foreign corporations not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines. The last year that petitioner withheld taxes pursuant to the foregoing Circular was in 1968.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed. The petition for mandamus is dismissed. The injunction issued against respondents-appellants is hereby lifted. No costs.

On June 27, 1968, Republic Act No. 5431 amended Section 24 (b) of the Tax Code increasing the tax rate from 30 % to 35 % and revising the tax basis from "such amount" referring to rents, etc. to "gross income," as follows:

G.R. No. L-52306 October 12, 1981

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents.

(b) Tax on foreign corporations.(1) Non-resident corporations.A foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines including a foreign life insurance company not engaged in the life insurance business in the Philippines shall pay a tax equal to thirty-five per cent of the gross income received during each taxable year from all sources within the Philippines, as interests, dividends, rents, royalties, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations for technical services or otherwise, emoluments or other fixed or determinable annual, periodical or casual gains, profits, and income, and capital gains, Provided however, That premiums shah not include reinsurance premiums. (Emphasis supplied)

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: On February 8, 1971, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 4-71, revoking General Circular No. V-334, and holding

that the latter was "erroneous for lack of legal basis," because "the tax therein prescribed should be based on gross income without deduction whatever," thus:

1968

After a restudy and analysis of Section 24 (b) of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 5431, and guided by the interpretation given by tax authorities to a similar provision in the Internal Revenue Code of the United States, on which the aforementioned provision of our Tax Code was patterned, this Office has come to the conclusion that the tax therein prescribed should be based on gross income without t deduction whatever. Consequently, the ruling in General Circular No. V-334, dated April 12, 1961, allowing the deduction of the proportionate cost of production or exhibition of motion picture films from the rental income of non- resident foreign corporations, is erroneous for lack of legal basis.

Total amount remitted Withholding tax due thereon Less: Amount already assessed Balance Add: 1/2% mo. int. fr. 4-16-69 to 4-29-71 Total amount due & collectible

P881,816.92 291,283.00 92,886.00 P198,447.00 23,813.64

P222,260.44

In view thereof, General Circular No. V-334, dated April 12, 1961, is hereby revoked and henceforth, local films distributors and exhibitors shall deduct and withhold 35% of the entire amount payable by them to non-resident foreign corporations, as film rental or royalty, or whatever such payment may be denominated, without any deduction whatever, pursuant to Section 24 (b), and pay the withheld taxes in accordance with Section 54 of the Tax Code, as amended.

On May 5, 1971, petitioner requested for a reconsideration and withdrawal of the assessment. However, without acting thereon, respondent, on April 6, 1976, issued a warrant of distraint and levy over petitioner's personal as well as real properties. The petitioner then filed its Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals whose Decision, dated November 29, 1979, is, in turn, the subject of this review. The Tax Court held:

All rulings inconsistent with this Circular is likewise revoked. (Emphasis ours)

On the basis of this new Circular, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued against petitioner a letter of assessment and demand dated April 15, 1971, but allegedly released by it and received by petitioner on April 12, 1971, requiring them to pay deficiency withholding income tax on the remitted film rentals for the years 1965 through 1968 and film royalty as of the end of 1968 in the total amount of P525,897.06 computed as follows: 1965

For the reasons given, the Court finds the assessment issued by respondent on April 16, 1971 against petitioner in the amounts of P75,895.24, P 99,239.18, P128,502.00 and P222,260.64 or a total of P525,897.06 as deficiency withholding income tax for the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968, respectively, in accordance with law. As prayed for, the petition for review filed in this case is dismissed, and petitioner ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation is hereby ordered to pay the sum of P525,897.06 to respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue as deficiency withholding income tax for the taxable years 1965 thru 1968, plus the surcharge and interest which have accrued thereon incident to delinquency pursuant to Section 51 (e) of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed at petitioner's cost.

Total amount remitted Withholding tax due thereon Less: Amount already assessed Balance Add: 1/2% mo. int. fr. 4-16-66 to 4-1669 Total amount due & collectible

P 511,059.48 153,318.00 89,000.00 P64,318.00 11,577.24 SO ORDERED.

2

The issues raised are two-fold:

I. Whether or not respondent can apply General Circular No. 4-71 retroactively and issue a deficiency assessment against petitioner in the amount of P 525,897.06 as deficiency withholding income tax for the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968.

P 75,895.24 II. Whether or not the right of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to assess the deficiency withholding income tax for the year 196,5 has prescribed. 3

1966

Total amount remitted Withholding tax due thereon Less: Amount already assessed Balance Add: 11/2%mo. int. fr. 4-16-67 to 4116-70 Total amount due & collectible

Upon the facts and circumstances of the case, review is warranted. P373,492.24 112,048.00 27,947.00 84,101.00 15,138.18 Sec. 338-A. Non-retroactivity of rulings. Any revocation, modification, or reversal of and of the rules and regulations promulgated in accordance with the preceding section or any of the rulings or circulars promulgated by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall not be given retroactive application if the relocation, modification, or reversal will be prejudicial to the taxpayers, except in the following cases: (a) where the taxpayer deliberately misstates or omits material facts from his return or any document required of him by the Bureau of Internal Revenue: (b) where the facts subsequently gathered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue are materially different from the facts on which the ruling is based; or (c) where the taxpayer acted in bad faith. (italics for emphasis) In point is Sec. 338-A (now Sec. 327) of the Tax Code. As inserted by Republic Act No. 6110 on August 9, 1969, it provides:

P99,239.18

1967

Total amount remitted Withholding tax due thereon Less: Amount already assessed Balance Add: 1/2% mo. int. fr. 4-16-68 to 416-71 Total amount due & collectible

P601,160.65 180,348.00 71,448.00 108,900.00 19,602.00 It is clear from the foregoing that rulings or circulars promulgated by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue have no retroactive application where to so apply them would be prejudicial to taxpayers. The prejudice to petitioner of the retroactive application of Memorandum Circular No. 4-71 is beyond question. It was issued only in 1971, or three years after 1968, the last year that petitioner had withheld taxes under General Circular No. V-334. The assessment and demand on petitioner to pay deficiency withholding income tax was also made three years after 1968 for a period of time commencing in 1965. Petitioner was no longer in a position to withhold taxes due from foreign corporations because it had already remitted all film rentals and no longer had any control over them when the new Circular was issued. And in so far as the enumerated exceptions are concerned, admittedly, petitioner does not fall under any of them.

P128,502.00

Respondent claims, however, that the provision on non-retroactivity is inapplicable in the present case in that General Circular No. V-334 is a nullity because in effect, it changed the law on the matter. The Court of Tax Appeals sustained this position holding that: "Deductions are wholly and exclusively within the power of Congress or the law-making body to grant, condition or deny; and where the statute imposes a tax equal to a specified rate or percentage of the gross or entire amount received by the taxpayer, the authority of some administrative officials to modify or change, much less reduce, the basis or measure of the tax should not be read into law." 4 Therefore, the Tax Court concluded, petitioner did not acquire any vested right thereunder as the same was a nullity.

revenue officials" by the highest official of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and approved by the then Secretary of Finance. 13

With the foregoing conclusions arrived at, resolution of the issue of prescription becomes unnecessary.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Court of Tax Appeals is hereby reversed, and the questioned assessment set aside. No costs.

The rationale behind General Circular No. V-334 was clearly stated therein, however: "It ha(d) been determined that the tax is still imposed on income derived from capital, or labor, or both combined, in accordance with the basic principle of income taxation ...and that a mere return of capital or investment is not income ... ." "A part of the receipts of a non-resident foreign film distributor derived from said film represents, therefore, a return of investment." The Circular thus fixed the return of capital at 50% to simplify the administrative chore of determining the portion of the rentals covering the return of capital." 5

G.R. No. 119252 August 18, 1997

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, petitioners, vs. HON. APOLINARIO B. SANTOS, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 67, Pasig City; ANTONIO M. MARCO; JEWELRY BY MARCO & CO., INC., and GUILD OF PHILIPPINE JEWELLERS, INC., respondents.

Were the "gross income" base clear from Sec. 24 (b), perhaps, the ratiocination of the Tax Court could be upheld. It should be noted, however, that said Section was not too plain and simple to understand. The fact that the issuance of the General Circular in question was rendered necessary leads to no other conclusion than that it was not easy of comprehension and could be subjected to different interpretations.

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

In fact, Republic Act No. 2343, dated June 20, 1959, supra, which was the basis of General Circular No. V-334, was just one in a series of enactments regarding Sec. 24 (b) of the Tax Code. Republic Act No. 3825 came next on June 22, 1963 without changing the basis but merely adding a proviso (in bold letters).

Of grave concern to this Court is the judicial pronouncement of the court a quo that certain provisions of the Tariff & Customs Code and the National Internal Revenue Code are unconstitutional. This provokes the issue: Can the Regional Trial Courts declare a law inoperative and without force and effect or otherwise unconstitutional? If it can, under what circumstances? In this petition, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Commissioner of Customs jointly seek the reversal of the Decision, 1 dated February 16, 1995, of herein public respondent, Hon. Apolinario B. Santos, Presiding Judge of Branch 67 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. The following facts, concisely related in the petition 2 of the Office of the Solicitor General, appear to be undisputed:

(b) Tax on foreign corporation.(1) Non-resident corporations. There shall be levied, collected and paid for each taxable year, in lieu of the tax imposed by the preceding paragraph, upon the amount received by every foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines, from all sources within the Philippines, as interest, dividends, rents, salaries, wages, premiums annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits, and income, a tax equal to thirty per centum of such amount: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT PREMIUMS SHALL NOT INCLUDE REINSURANCE PREMIUMS. (double emphasis ours).

Republic Act No. 3841, dated likewise on June 22, 1963, followed after, omitting the proviso and inserting some words (also in bold letters).

1. Private respondent Guild of Philippine Jewelers, Inc., is an association of Filipino jewelers engaged in the manufacture of jewelries (sic) and allied undertakings. Among its members are Hans Brumann, Inc., Miladay Jewels, Inc., Mercelles, Inc., Solid Gold International Traders, Inc., Diagem Trading Corporation, and private respondent Jewelry by Marco & Co., Inc. Private respondent Antonio M. Marco is the President of the Guild. 2. On August 5, 1988, Felicidad L. Viray, then Regional Director, Region No. 4-A of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, acting for and in behalf of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, issued Regional Mission Order No. 109-88 to BIR officers, led by Eliseo Corcega, to conduct surveillance, monitoring, and inventory of all imported articles of Hans Brumann, Inc., and place the same under preventive embargo. The duration of the mission was from August 8 to August 20, 1988 (Exhibit "1"; Exhibit "A").

(b) Tax on foreign corporations.(1) Non-resident corporations.There shall be levied, collected and paid for each taxable year, in lieu of the tax imposed by the preceding paragraph, upon the amount received by every foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines, from all sources within the Philippines, as interest, dividends, rents, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable annual or periodical OR CASUAL gains, profits and income, AND CAPITAL GAINS, a tax equal to thirty per centum of such amount. 6 (double emphasis supplied)

The principle of legislative approval of administrative interpretation by reenactment clearly obtains in this case. It provides that "the re-enactment of a statute substantially unchanged is persuasive indication of the adoption by Congress of a prior executive construction. 7 Note should be taken of the fact that this case involves not a mere opinion of the Commissioner or ruling rendered on a mere query, but a Circular formally issued to "all internal revenue officials" by the then Commissioner of Internal Revenue. It was only on June 27, 1968 under Republic Act No. 5431, supra, which became the basis of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 4-71, that Sec. 24 (b) was amended to refer specifically to 35% of the "gross income."

3. On August 17, 1988, pursuant to the aforementioned Mission Order, the BIR officers proceeded to the establishment of Hans Brumann, Inc., served the Mission Order, and informed the establishment that they were going to make an inventory of the articles involved to see if the proper taxes thereon have been paid. They then made an inventory of the articles displayed in the cabinets with the assistance of an employee of the establishment. They listed down the articles, which list was signed by the assistant employee. They also requested the presentation of proof of necessary payments for excise tax and value-added tax on said articles (pp. 10-15, TSN, April 12, 1993, Exhibits "2", "2-A", "3", "3-A").

This Court is not unaware of the well-entrenched principle that the Government is never estopped from collecting taxes because of mistakes or errors on the part of its agents. 8 In fact, utmost caution should be taken in this regard. 9 But, like other principles of law, this also admits of exceptions in the interest of justice and fairplay. The insertion of Sec. 338-A into the National Internal Revenue Code, as held in the case of Tuason, Jr. vs. Lingad, 10 is indicative of legislative intention to support the principle of good faith. In fact, in the United States, from where Sec. 24 (b) was patterned, it has been held that the Commissioner of Collector is precluded from adopting a position inconsistent with one previously taken where injustice would result therefrom, 11 or where there has been a misrepresentation to the taxpayer. 12

4. The BIR officers requested the establishment not to sell the articles until it can be proven that the necessary taxes thereon have been paid. Accordingly, Mr. Hans Brumann, the owner of the establishment, signed a receipt for Goods, Articles, and Things Seized under Authority of the National Internal Revenue Code (dated August 17, 1988), acknowledging that the articles inventoried have been seized and left in his possession, and promising not to dispose of the same without authority of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue pending investigation. 3 5. Subsequently, BIR officer Eliseo Corcega submitted to his superiors a report of the inventory conducted and a computation of the value-added tax and ad valorem tax on the articles for evaluation and disposition. 4

We have also noted that in its Decision, the Court of Tax Appeals further required the petitioner to pay interest and surcharge as provided for in Sec. 51 (e) of the Tax Code in addition to the deficiency withholding tax of P 525,897.06. This additional requirement is much less called for because the petitioner relied in good faith and religiously complied with no less than a Circular issued "to all internal

6. Mr. Hans Brumann, the owner of the establishment, never filed a protest with the BIR on the preventive embargo of the articles. 5

Section 150 (a) of Executive Order No. 273 reads:

7. On October 17, 1988, Letter of Authority No. 0020596 was issued by Deputy Commissioner Eufracio D. Santos to BIR officers to examine the books of accounts and other accounting records of Hans Brumann, Inc., for "stocktaking investigation for excise tax purposes for the period January 1, 1988 to present" (Exhibit "C"). In a letter dated October 27, 1988, in connection with the physical count of the inventory (stocks on hand) pursuant to said Letter of Authority, Hans Brumann, Inc. was requested to prepare and make available to the BIR the documents indicated therein (Exhibit "D").

Sec. 150. Non-essential goods. There shall be levied, assessed and collected a tax equivalent to 20% based on the wholesale price or the value of importation used by the Bureau of Customs in determining tariff and customs duties; net of the excise tax and value-added tax, of the following goods:

8. Hans Brumann, Inc., did not produce the documents requested by the BIR. 6

9. Similar Letter of Authority were issued to BIR officers to examine the books of accounts and other accounting records of Miladay Jewels, Inc., Mercelles, Inc., Solid Gold International Traders, Inc., (Exhibits "E", "G" and "N") and Diagem Trading Corporation 7 for "stocktaking/investigation far excise tax purpose for the period January 1, 1988 to present."

10. In the case of Miladay Jewels, Inc. and Mercelles, Inc., there is no account of what actually transpired in the implementation of the Letters of Authority. 11. In the case of Solid Gold International Traders Corporation, the BIR officers made an inventory of the articles in the establishment. 8 The same is true with respect to Diagem Traders Corporation. 9

(a) All goods commonly or commercially known as jewelry, whether real or imitation, pearls, precious and semi-precious stones and imitations thereof; goods made of, or ornamented, mounted and fitted with, precious metals or imitations thereof or ivory (not including surgical and dental instruments, silver-plated wares, frames or mountings for spectacles or eyeglasses, and dental gold or gold alloys and other precious metals used in filling, mounting or fitting of the teeth); opera glasses and lorgnettes. The term "precious metals" shall include platinum, gold, silver, and other metals of similar or greater value. The term "imitations thereof" shall include platings and alloys of such metals.

Section 150 (a) of Executive Order No. 273, which took effect on January 1, 1988, amended the then Section 163 (a) of the Tax Code of 1986 which provided that:

12. On November 29, 1988, private respondents Antonio M. Marco and Jewelry By Marco & Co., Inc. filed with the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Pasig City, Metro Manila, a petition for declaratory relief with writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order against herein petitioners and Revenue Regional Director Felicidad L. Viray (docketed as Civil Case No. 56736) praying that Sections 126, 127(a) and (b) and 150(a) of the National Internal Revenue Code and Hdg. No. 71.01, 71.02, 71.03, and 71.04, Chapter 71 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines be declared unconstitutional and void, and that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Customs be prevented or enjoined from issuing mission orders and other orders of similar nature. . . .

Sec. 163. Percentage tax on sales of non-essential articles. There shall be levied, assessed and collected, once only on every original sale, barter, exchange or similar transaction for nominal or valuable consideration intended to transfer ownership of, or title to, the articles herein below enumerated a tax equivalent to 50% of the gross value in money of the articles so sold, bartered, exchanged or transferred, such tax to be paid by the manufacturer or producer:

13. On February 9, 1989, herein petitioners filed their answer to the petition. . . .

14 On October 16, 1989, private respondents filed a Motion with Leave to Amend Petition by including as petitioner the Guild of Philippine Jewelers, Inc., which motion was granted. . . .

15. The case, which was originally assigned to Branch 154, was later reassigned to Branch 67.

(a) All articles commonly or commercially known as jewelry, whether real or imitation, pearls, precious and semi-precious stones, and imitations thereof, articles made of, or ornamented, mounted or fitted with, precious metals or imitations thereof or ivory (not including surgical and dental instruments, silver-plated wares, frames or mounting for spectacles or eyeglasses, and dental gold or gold alloys and other precious metal used in filling, mounting or fitting of the teeth); opera glasses, and lorgnettes. The term "precious metals" shall include platinum, gold, silver, and other metals of similar or greater value. The term "imitations thereof" shall include platings and alloys of such metals;

16. On February 16, 1995, public respondents rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

Section 163 (a) of the 1986 Tax Code was formerly Section 194(a) of the 1977 Tax Code and Section 184(a) of the Tax code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 69, which took effect on January 1, 1974.

In view of the foregoing reflections, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:

1. Declaring Section 104 of the Tariff and the Customs Code of the Philippines, Hdg. 71.01, 71.02, 71.03, and 71.04, Chapter 71 as amended by Executive Order No. 470, imposing three to ten (3% to 10%) percent tariff and customs duty on natural and cultured pearls and precious or semi-precious stones, and Section 150 par. (a) the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, as amended, renumbered and rearranged by Executive Order 273, imposing twenty (20%) percent excise tax on jewelry, pearls and other precious stones, as INOPERATIVE and WITHOUT FORCE and EFFECT insofar as petitioners are concerned.

It will be noted that, while under the present law, jewelry is subject to a 20% excise tax in addition to a 10% value-added tax under the old law, it was subjected to 50% percentage tax. It was even subjected to a 70% percentage tax under then Section 184(a) of the Tax Code, as amended by P.D. 69. Section 104, Hdg. Nos. 17.01, 17.02, 17.03 and 17.04, Chapter 71 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended by Executive Order No. 470, dated July 20, 1991, imposes import duty on natural or cultured pearls and precious or semi-precious stones at the rate of 3% to 10% to be applied in stages from 1991 to 1994 and 30% in 1995.

Prior to the issuance of E.O. 470, the rate of import duty in 1988 was 10% to 50% when the petition was filed in the court a quo.

2. Enforcement of the same is hereby enjoined.

No cost.

In support of their petition before the lower court, the private respondents submitted a position paper purporting to be an exhaustive study of the tax rates on jewelry prevailing in other Asian countries, in comparison to tax rates levied on the same in the Philippines. 10 The following issues were thus raised therein:

SO ORDERED.

1. Whether or not the Honorable Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition.

THAILAND

2. Whether the petition states a cause of action or whether the petition alleges a justiciable controversy between the parties.

3. Whether Section 150, par. (a) of the NIRC and Section 104, Hdg. 71.01, 71.02, 71.03 and 71.04 of the Tariff and Customs Code are unconstitutional.

Gems and jewelry are Thailand's ninth most important export earner. In the past, the industry was overlooked by successive administrations much to the dismay of those involved in developing trade. Prohibitive import duties and sales tax on precious gemstones restricted the growht (sic) of the industry, resulting in most of the business being unofficial. It was indeed difficult for a government or businessman to promote an industry which did not officially exist.

4. Whether the issuance of the Mission Order and Letters of Authority is valid and legal.

In the assailed decision, the public respondent held indeed that the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition since "jurisdiction over the nature of the suit is conferred by law and it is determine[d] through the allegations in the petition," and that the "Court of Tax Appeals has no jurisdiction to declare a statute unconstitutional much less issue writs of certiorari and prohibition in order to correct acts of respondents allegedly committed with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction."

As to the second issue, the public respondent, made the holding that there exists a justiciable controversy between the parties, agreeing with the statements made in the position paper presented by the private respondents, and considering these statements to be factual evidence, to wit:

Despite these circumstances, Thailand's Gem business kept growing up in (sic) businessmen began to realize it's potential. In 1978, the government quietly removed the severe duties on precious stones, but imposed a sales tax of 3.5%. Little was said or done at that time as the government wanted to see if a free trade in gemstones and jewelry would increase local manufacturing and exports or if it would mean more foreign made jewelry pouring into Thailand. However, as time progressed, there were indications that local manufacturing was indeed being encouraged and the economy was earning mom from exports. The government soon removed the 3% sales tax too, putting Thailand at par with Hongkong and Singapore. In these countries, there are no more import duties and sales tax on gems. (Cited in pages 6 and 7 of Exhibit "M". The Center for Research and Communication in cooperation with the Guild of Philippine Jewelers, Inc., June 1986). To illustrate, shown hereunder is the Philippine tariff and tax structure on jewelry and other precious and semi-precious stones compared to other neighboring countries, to wit:

Evidence for the petitioners indeed reveals that government taxation policy treats jewelry, pearls, and other precious stones and metals as non-essential luxury items and therefore, taxed heavily; that the atmospheric cost of taxation is killing the local manufacturing jewelry industry because they cannot compete with neighboring and other countries where importation and manufacturing of jewelry is not taxed heavily, if not at all; that while government incentives and subsidies exit, local manufacturers cannot avail of the same because officially many of them are unregistered and are unable to produce the required official documents because they operate underground, outside the tariff and tax structure; that local jewelry manufacturing is under threat of extinction, otherwise discouraged, while domestic trading has become more attractive; and as a consequence, neighboring countries, such as: Hongkong, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and other foreign competitors supplying the Philippine market either through local channels or through the black market for smuggled goods are the ones who are getting business and making money, while members of the petitioner Guild of Philippine Jewelers, Inc. are constantly subjected to bureaucratic harassment instead of being given by the government the necessary support in order to survive and generate revenue for the government, and most of all fight competitively not only in the domestic market but in the arena of world market where the real contest is.

Tariff on imported Jewelry and (Manufacturing) Sales Tax 10% (VAT) precious stones Excise tax

Philippines 3% to 10% to be 20% 10% VAT applied in stages

Malaysia None None None

Thailand None None None

Singapore None None None

Hongkong None None None In this connection, the present tariff and tax structure increases manufacturing costs and renders the local jewelry manufacturers uncompetitive against other countries even before they start manufacturing and trading. Because of the prohibitive cast (sic) of taxation, most manufacturers source from black market for smuggled goods, and that while manufacturers can avail of tax exemption and/or tax credits from the (manufacturing) excise tax, they have no documents to present when filing this exemption because, or pointed out earlier, most of them source their raw materials from the block market, and since many of them do not legally exist or operate onofficially (sic), or underground, again they have no records (receipts) to indicate where and when they will utilize such tax credits. (Cited in Exhibit "M" Buencamino Report).

Considering the allegations of fact in the petition which were duly proven during the trial, the Court holds that the petition states a cause of action and there exists a justiciable controversy between the parties which would require determination of constitutionality of the laws imposing excise tax and customs duty on jewelry. 11(emphasis ours)

The public respondent, in addressing the third issue, ruled that the laws in question are confiscatory and oppressive. Again, virtually adopting verbatim the reasons presented by the private respondents in their position paper, the lower court stated:

The Court finds that indeed government taxation policy trats(sic) hewelry(sic) as non-essential luxury item and therefore, taxed heavily. Aside from the ten (10%) percent value added tax (VAT), local jewelry manufacturers contend with the (manufacturing) excise tax of twenty (20%) percent (to be applied in stages) customs duties on imported raw materials, the highest in the Asia-Pacific region. In contrast, imported gemstones and other precious metals are duty free in Hongkong, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore.

Given these constraints, the local manufacturer has no recourse but to the back door for smuggled goods if only to be able to compete even ineffectively, or cease manufacturing activities and instead engage in the tradinf (sic) of smuggled finished jewelry.

The Court elaborates further on the experiences of other countries in their treatment of the jewelry sector.

Worthy of note is the fact that indeed no evidence was adduced by respondents to disprove the foregoing allegations of fact. Under the foregoing factual circumstances, the Court finds the questioned statutory provisions confiscatory and destructive of the proprietary right of the petitioners to engage in business in violation of Section 1, Article III of the Constitution which states, as follows:

MALAYSIA No person shall be deprived of the life, liberty, or property without due process of law . . . . 12

Duties and taxes on imported gemstones and gold and the sales tax on jewelry were abolished in Malaysia in 1984. They were removed to encourage the development of Malaysia's jewelry manufacturing industry and to increase exports of jewelry.

Anent the fourth and last issue, the herein public respondent did not find it necessary to rule thereon, since, in his opinion, "the same has been rendered moot and academic by the aforementioned pronouncement." 13

The petitioners now assail the decision rendered by the public respondent, contending that the latter has no authority to pass judgment upon the taxation policy of the government. In addition, the petitioners impugn the decision in question by asserting that there was no showing that the tax laws on jewelry are confiscatory and destructive of private respondent's proprietary rights.

v. Intermediate Court of Appeals. 21 But this authority does not extend to deciding questions which pertain to legislative policy.

We rule in favor of the petitioners.

It is interesting to note that public respondent, in the dispositive portion of his decision, perhaps keeping in mind his limitations under the law as a trial judge, did not go so far as to declare the laws in question to be unconstitutional. However, therein he declared the laws to be inoperative and without force and effect insofar as the private respondents are concerned. But, respondent judge, in the body of his decision, unequivocally but wrongly declared the said provisions of law to be violative of Section 1, Article III of the Constitution. In fact, in their Supplemental Comment on the Petition for Review, 14 the private respondents insist that Judge Santos, in his capacity as judge of the Regional Trial Court, acted within his authority in passing upon the issues, to wit:

The trial court is not the proper forum for the ventilation of the issues raised by the private respondents. The arguments they presented focus on the wisdom of the provisions of law which they seek to nullify. Regional Trial Courts can only look into the validity of a provision, that is, whether or not it has been passed according to the procedures laid down by law, and thus cannot inquire as to the reasons for its existence. Granting arguendo that the private respondents may have provided convincing arguments why the jewelry industry in the Philippines should not be taxed as it is, it is to the legislature that they must resort to for relief, since with the legislature primarily lies the discretion to determine the nature (kind), object (purpose), extent (rate), coverage (subjects) andsitus (place) of taxation. This Court cannot freely delve into those matters which, by constitutional fiat, rightly rest on legislative judgment. 22 As succinctly put in Lim vs. Pacquing: 23 "Where a controversy may be settled on a platform other than one involving constitutional adjudication, the court should exercise becoming modesty and avoid the constitutional question." As judges, we can only interpret and apply the law and, despite our doubts about its wisdom, cannot repeal or amend it. 24

A perusal of the appealed decision would undoubtedly disclose that public respondent did not pass judgment on the soundness or wisdom of the government's tax policy on jewelry. True, public respondent, in his questioned decision, observed, inter alia, that indeed government tax policy treats jewelry as non-essential item, and therefore, taxed heavily; that the present tariff and tax structure increase manufacturing cost and renders the local jewelry manufacturers uncompetitive against other countries even before they start manufacturing and trading; that many of the local manufacturers do not legally exist or operate unofficially or underground; and that the manufacturers have no recourse but to the back door for smuggled goods if only to be able to compete even if ineffectively or cease manufacturing activities.

The respondents presented an exhaustive study on the tax rates on jewelry levied by different Asian countries. This is meant to convince us that compared to other countries, the tax rates imposed on said industry in the Philippines is oppressive and confiscatory. This Court, however, cannot subscribe to the theory that the tax rates of other countries should be used as a yardstick in determining what may be the proper subjects of taxation in our own country. It should be pointed out that in imposing the aforementioned taxes and duties, the State, acting through the legislative and executive branches, is exercising its sovereign prerogative. 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 or one particular class for taxation, or exemption, infringe no constitutional limitation." 25

BUT, public respondent did not, in any manner, interfere with or encroach upon the prerogative of the legislature to determine what should be the tax policy on jewelry. On the other hand, the issue raised before, and passed upon by, the public respondent was whether or not Section 150, paragraph (a) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) and Section 104, Hdg. 71.01, 71.02, 71.03 and 71.04 of the Tariff and Customs Code are unconstitutional, or differently stated, whether or not the questioned statutory provisions affect the constitutional right of private respondents to engage in business.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED, and the Decision in Civil Case No. 56736 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-66653 June 19, 1986

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. BURROUGHS LIMITED AND THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.

It is submitted that public respondent confined himself on this issue which is clearly a judicial question.

Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano & Hernandez Law Office for private respondent.

We find it incongruous, in the face of the sweeping pronouncements made by Judge Santos in his decision, that private respondents can still persist in their argument that the former did not overreach the restrictions dictated upon him by law. There is no doubt in the Court's mind, despite protestations to the contrary, that respondent judge encroached upon matters properly falling within the province of legislative functions. In citing as basis for his decision unproven comparative data pertaining to differences between tax rates of various Asian countries, and concluding that the jewelry industry in the Philippines suffers as a result, the respondent judge took it upon himself to supplant legislative policy regarding jewelry taxation. In advocating the abolition of local tax and duty on jewelry simply because other countries have adopted such policies, the respondent judge overlooked the fact that such matters are not for him to decide. There are reasons why jewelry, a non-essential item, is taxed as it is in this country, and these reasons, deliberated upon by our legislature, are beyond the reach of judicial questioning. As held in Macasiano vs. National Housing Authority: 15

PARAS, J.:

Petition for certiorari to review and set aside the Decision dated June 27, 1983 of respondent Court of Tax Appeals in its C.T.A. Case No. 3204, entitled "Burroughs Limited vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" which ordered petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue to grant in favor of private respondent Burroughs Limited, tax credit in the sum of P172,058.90, representing erroneously overpaid branch profit remittance tax.

The policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on constitutional questions and to presume that the acts of the political departments are valid in the absence of a clear and unmistakable showing to the contrary. To doubt is to sustain. This presumption is based on the doctrine of separation of powers which enjoins upon each department a becoming respect for the acts of the other departments. The theory is that as the joint act of Congress and the President of the Philippines, a law has been carefully studied and determined to be in accordance with the fundamental low before it was finally enacted. (emphasis ours)

Burroughs Limited is a foreign corporation authorized to engage in trade or business in the Philippines through a branch office located at De la Rosa corner Esteban Streets, Legaspi Village, Makati, Metro Manila. Sometime in March 1979, said branch office applied with the Central Bank for authority to remit to its parent company abroad, branch profit amounting to P7,647,058.00. Thus, on March 14, 1979, it paid the 15% branch profit remittance tax, pursuant to Sec. 24 (b) (2) (ii) and remitted to its head office the amount of P6,499,999.30 computed as follows: Amount applied P7,647,058.00 for remittance................................

What we see here is a debate on the WISDOM of the laws in question. This is a matter on which the RTC is not competent to rule. 16 As Cooley observed: "Debatable questions are for the legislature to decide. The courts do not sit to resolve the merits of conflicting issues." 17 In Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 18 Justice Laurel made it clear that "the judiciary does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation." And fittingly so, for in the exercise of judicial power, we are allowed only "to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable", and may not annul an act of the political departments simply because we feel it is unwise or impractical. 19 This is not to say that Regional Trial Courts have no power whatsoever to declare a law unconstitutional. In J.M. Tuason and Co. v. Court of Appeals, 20 we said that "[p]lainly the Constitution contemplates that the inferior courts should have jurisdiction in cases involving constitutionality of any treaty or law, for it speaks of appellate review of final judgments of inferior courts in cases where such constitutionality happens to be in issue." This authority of lower courts to decide questions of constitutionality in the first instance reaffirmed in Ynos

Deduct: 15% branch profit

remittance ..............................................1,147,058.70

tax

Net amount P6,499,999.30

actually

remitted..................................

Claiming that the 15% profit remittance tax should have been computed on the basis of the amount actually remitted (P6,499,999.30) and not on the amount before profit remittance tax (P7,647,058.00), private respondent filed on December 24, 1980, a written claim for the refund or tax credit of the amount of P172,058.90 representing alleged overpaid branch profit remittance tax, computed as follows:

Profits actually .........................................P6,499,999.30

remitted

Remittance rate.............................................................. 15%

tax

Remittance tax .......................................................15%

rate

Remittance tax P974,999.89

due...................................................

Branch profit remittance tax-

is well-taken. As correctly held by respondent Court in its assailed decision-

due thereon 974,999.89

......................................................P Respondent concedes at least that in his ruling dated January 21, 1980 he held that under Section 24 (b) (2) of the Tax Code the 15% branch profit remittance tax shall be imposed on the profit actually remitted abroad and not on the total branch profit out of which the remittance is to be made. Based on such ruling petitioner should have paid only the amount of P974,999.89 in remittance tax computed by taking the 15% of the profits of P6,499,999.89 in remittance tax actually remitted to its head office in the United States, instead of Pl,147,058.70, on its net profits of P7,647,058.00. Undoubtedly, petitioner has overpaid its branch profit remittance tax in the amount of P172,058.90. Petitioner contends that respondent is no longer entitled to a refund because Memorandum Circular No. 8-82 dated March 17, 1982 had revoked and/or repealed the BIR ruling of January 21, 1980. The said memorandum circular states

Branch profit remittance

tax paid .............................................................Pl,147,058.70

Less: Branch profit remittance tax as above computed................................................. 974,999.89

Total amount P172,058.81

refundable...........................................

On February 24, 1981, private respondent filed with respondent court, a petition for review, docketed as C.T.A. Case No. 3204 for the recovery of the above-mentioned amount of P172,058.81. On June 27, 1983, respondent court rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads

Considering that the 15% branch profit remittance tax is imposed and collected at source, necessarily the tax base should be the amount actually applied for by the branch with the Central Bank of the Philippines as profit to be remitted abroad.

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Commission of Internal Revenue is hereby ordered to grant a tax credit in favor of petitioner Burroughs Limited the amount of P 172,058.90. Without pronouncement as to costs.

Petitioner's aforesaid contention is without merit. What is applicable in the case at bar is still the Revenue Ruling of January 21, 1980 because private respondent Burroughs Limited paid the branch profit remittance tax in question on March 14, 1979. Memorandum Circular No. 8-82 dated March 17, 1982 cannot be given retroactive effect in the light of Section 327 of the National Internal Revenue Code which provides-

SO ORDERED.

Unable to obtain a reconsideration from the aforesaid decision, petitioner filed the instant petition before this Court with the prayers as herein earlier stated upon the sole issue of whether the tax base upon which the 15% branch profit remittance tax shall be imposed under the provisions of section 24(b) of the Tax Code, as amended, is the amount applied for remittance on the profit actually remitted after deducting the 15% profit remittance tax. Stated differently is private respondent Burroughs Limited legally entitled to a refund of the aforementioned amount of P172,058.90. We rule in the affirmative. The pertinent provision of the National Revenue Code is Sec. 24 (b) (2) (ii) which states:

Sec. 327. Non-retroactivity of rulings. Any revocation, modification, or reversal of any of the rules and regulations promulgated in accordance with the preceding section or any of the rulings or circulars promulgated by the Commissioner shag not be given retroactive application if the revocation, modification, or reversal will be prejudicial to the taxpayer except in the following cases (a) where the taxpayer deliberately misstates or omits material facts from his return or in any document required of him by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; (b) where the facts subsequently gathered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue are materially different from the facts on which the ruling is based, or (c) where the taxpayer acted in bad faith. (ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. CTA, 108 SCRA 151-152)

Sec. 24. Rates of tax on corporations....

(b) Tax on foreign corporations. ...

The prejudice that would result to private respondent Burroughs Limited by a retroactive application of Memorandum Circular No. 8-82 is beyond question for it would be deprived of the substantial amount of P172,058.90. And, insofar as the enumerated exceptions are concerned, admittedly, Burroughs Limited does not fall under any of them.

(2) (ii) Tax on branch profits remittances. Any profit remitted abroad by a branch to its head office shall be subject to a tax of fifteen per cent (15 %) ...

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of respondent Court of Tax Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED. In a Bureau of Internal Revenue ruling dated January 21, 1980 by then Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue Hon. Efren I. Plana the aforequoted provision had been interpreted to mean that "the tax base upon which the 15% branch profit remittance tax ... shall be imposed...(is) the profit actually remitted abroad and not on the total branch profits out of which the remittance is to be made. " The said ruling is hereinbelow quoted as follows:

In reply to your letter of November 3, 1978, relative to your query as to the tax base upon which the 15% branch profits remittance tax provided for under Section 24 (b) (2) of the 1977 Tax Code shall be imposed, please be advised that the 15% branch profit tax shall be imposed on the branch profits actually remitted abroad and not on the total branch profits out of which the remittance is to be made.

Please be guided accordingly. Applying, therefore, the aforequoted ruling, the claim of private respondent that it made an overpayment in the amount of P172,058.90 which is the difference between the remittance tax actually paid of Pl,147,058.70 and the remittance tax that should have been paid of P974,999,89, computed as follows Profits actually P6,499,999.30 remitted.........................................