Lawyerly

GR No. 210836

2015-09-01

BERSAMIN, J.

Chevron sought reconsideration, but the CTA En Banc denied its motion for that purpose in the resolution dated January 7, 2014.[13]

GR No. 210836

2015-09-01

CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC. v. CIR

BERSAMIN, J.

Under Section 129[17] of the NIRC, as amended, excise taxes are imposed on two kinds of goods, namely: (a) goods manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sales or consumption or for any other disposition; and (b) things imported. Undoubtedly, the excise tax imposed under Section 129 of the NIRC is a tax on property.[18]

GR No. 188497

2014-02-19

CIR v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

As to respondent's reliance in the cases of Silkair (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue[3] and Exxonmobil Petroleum & Chemical Holdings, Inc.-Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[4] the Solicitor General points out that there was no pronouncement in these cases that petroleum manufacturers selling petroleum products to international carriers are exempt from paying excise taxes. In fact, Exxonmobil even cited the case of Philippine Acetylene Co, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.[5] Further, the ruling in Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.[6] which confirms that Section 135 does not intend to exempt manufacturers or producers of petroleum products from the payment of excise tax.

GR No. 188497

2014-02-19

CIR v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

...The Council in 1951 adopted a Resolution and Recommendation on the taxation of fuel, a Resolution on the taxation of income and of aircraft, and a Resolution on taxes related to the sale or use of international air transport (cf. Doc 7145) which were further amended and amplified by the policy statements in Doc 8632 published in 1966. The Resolutions and Recommendation concerned were designed to recognize the uniqueness of civil aviation and the need to accord tax exempt status to certain aspects of the operations of international air transport and were adopted because multiple taxation on the aircraft, fuel, technical supplies and the income of international air transport, as well as taxes on its sale and use, were considered as major obstacles to the further development of international air transport. Non-observance of the principle of reciprocal exemption envisaged in these policies was also seen as risking retaliatory action with adverse repercussions on international air transport which plays a major role in the development and expansion of international trade and travel.[12]

GR No. 198759

2013-07-01

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. CIR

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

PAL counters that the doctrine laid down in Silkair is inapplicable, asserting that it has the legal personality to file the subject tax refund claim on account of its tax exemption privileges under its legislative franchise which covers both direct and indirect taxes. In support thereof, it cites the case of Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.[20] (Maceda).

GR No. 188497

2012-04-25

CIR v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Petitioner elevated the case to the CTA En Banc which upheld the ruling of the First Division. The CTA pointed out the specific exemption mentioned under Section 135 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (NIRC) of petroleum products sold to international carriers such as respondent's clients. It said that this Court's ruling in Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.[8] is inapplicable because said case only put to rest the issue of whether or not the National Power Corporation (NPC) is subject to tax considering that NPC is a tax-exempt entity mentioned in Sec. 135 (c) of the NIRC (1997), whereas the present case involves the tax exemption of the sale of petroleum under Sec. 135 (a) of the same Code. Further, the CTA said that the ruling in Philippine Acetylene Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue[9] likewise finds no application because the party asking for the refund in said case was the seller-producer based on the exemption granted under the law to the tax-exempt buyers, NPC and Voice of America (VOA), whereas in this case it is the article or product which is exempt from tax and not the international carrier.

GR Nos. 171383 & 172379

2008-11-14

SILKAIR PTE. LTD. v. CIR

CARPIO, J.

Petitioner also cites this Court's Resolution in Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.,[16] quoting the opinion of the Secretary of Justice which states, thus:The view which refuses to accord the exemption because the tax is first paid by the seller disregards realities and gives more importance to form than substance. Equity and law always exalt substance over form.[17]

GR NO. 165827

2006-06-16

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. PROVINCE OF ISABELA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed this petition for review with only the Province of Isabela as respondent. It ascribes the following error to the CA: THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION IS LIABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF FRANCHISE TAX UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.[12] Petitioner urges this Court to take a second look at its ruling in National Power Corporation v. City of Cabanatuan,[13] which held it liable for franchise tax by virtue of the LGC. It contends that Section 193 thereof did not withdraw the tax exemption provided under Section 13 of its charter, Rep. Act No. 6395, which provides: Section 13. Non-profit Character of the Corporation; Exemption from All Taxes, Duties, Fees, Imposts and Other Charges by the Government and Government Instrumentalities. - The Corporation shall be non-profit and shall devote all its returns from its capital investment as well as excess revenues from its operation, for expansion. To enable the Corporation to pay its indebtedness and obligations and in furtherance and effective implementation of the policy enunciated in Section One of this Act, the Corporation, including its subsidiaries, is hereby declared, exempt from the payment of all forms of taxes, duties, fees, imposts as well as costs and service fees including filing fees, appeal bonds, supersedeas bonds, in any court or administrative proceedings. Petitioner stresses that there was no provision in the LGC expressly repealing the said provision; neither was there an implied repeal thereof. It points out that repeals by implication are not favored. Moreover, a general law, such as the LGC, cannot repeal a special law, such as Rep. Act No. 6395, unless it clearly appears that the legislature intended to do so.[14] Petitioner argues that, in this case, there was clearly no intention to repeal; on the contrary, the intention to exempt it from local taxes is clearly manifest in said Section 13. This is bolstered by the Declaration of Policy which provides that "the total electrification of the Philippines through the development of power from all sources to meet the needs of industrial development and dispersal, and the needs of rural electrification are primary objectives of the nation which shall be pursued coordinately and supported by all instrumentalities of the government, including its financial institutions." In addition, petitioner cites the case of Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.[15] to show the intent of lawmakers to exempt it from all forms of taxes. Petitioner further maintains that it is a government-owned and controlled corporation with an original charter and its shares of stock are owned by the National Government; as such, it is exempt from local taxes.[16]

GR No. 168056

2005-09-01

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE VALUE ADDED TAX LAW

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In contrast, a direct tax is a tax for which a taxpayer is directly liable on the transaction or business it engages in, without transferring the burden to someone else.[11] Examples are individual and corporate income taxes, transfer taxes, and residence taxes.[12]

GR NO. 154028

2005-08-29

PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL v. CIR

QUISUMBING, J.

1.3 Interest income derived from any source.[7] This Supreme Court has confirmed this exemption. In Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.,[8] this Court ruled that Republic Act No. 358[9] exempts the NPC from all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, charges, and restrictions of the Republic of the Philippines, and its provinces, cities and municipalities. This exemption is broad enough to include both direct and indirect taxes the NPC may be required to pay. To limit the exemption granted the NPC to direct taxes, notwithstanding the general and broad language of the statute, will be to thwart the legislative intention in giving exemption from all forms of taxes and impositions, without distinguishing between those that are direct and those that are not.

GR No. 154028

2005-07-29

PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL v. CIR

QUISUMBING, J.

1.3 Interest income derived from any source.[7] This Supreme Court has confirmed this exemption. In Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.,[8] this Court ruled that Republic Act No. 358[9] exempts the NPC from all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, charges, and restrictions of the Republic of the Philippines, and its provinces, cities and municipalities. This exemption is broad enough to include both direct and indirect taxes the NPC may be required to pay. To limit the exemption granted the NPC to direct taxes, notwithstanding the general and broad language of the statute, will be to thwart the legislative intention in giving exemption from all forms of taxes and impositions, without distinguishing between those that are direct and those that are not.

	GR No. 210836 2015-09-01	CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC. v. CIR BERSAMIN, J.
Chevron sought reconsideration, but the CTA En Banc denied its motion for that purpose in the resolution dated January 7, 2014.[13]
	GR No. 210836 2015-09-01	CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC. v. CIR BERSAMIN, J.
Under Section 129[17] of the NIRC, as amended, excise taxes are imposed on two kinds of goods, namely: (a) goods manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sales or consumption or for any other disposition; and (b) things imported. Undoubtedly, the excise tax imposed under Section 129 of the NIRC is a tax on property.[18]
	GR No. 188497 2014-02-19	CIR v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As to respondent's reliance in the cases of Silkair (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue[3] and Exxonmobil Petroleum & Chemical Holdings, Inc.-Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[4] the Solicitor General points out that there was no pronouncement in these cases that petroleum manufacturers selling petroleum products to international carriers are exempt from paying excise taxes. In fact, Exxonmobil even cited the case of Philippine Acetylene Co, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.[5] Further, the ruling in Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.[6] which confirms that Section 135 does not intend to exempt manufacturers or producers of petroleum products from the payment of excise tax.
	GR No. 188497 2014-02-19	CIR v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
...The Council in 1951 adopted a Resolution and Recommendation on the taxation of fuel, a Resolution on the taxation of income and of aircraft, and a Resolution on taxes related to the sale or use of international air transport (cf. Doc 7145) which were further amended and amplified by the policy statements in Doc 8632 published in 1966. The Resolutions and Recommendation concerned were designed to recognize the uniqueness of civil aviation and the need to accord tax exempt status to certain aspects of the operations of international air transport and were adopted because multiple taxation on the aircraft, fuel, technical supplies and the income of international air transport, as well as taxes on its sale and use, were considered as major obstacles to the further development of international air transport. Non-observance of the principle of reciprocal exemption envisaged in these policies was also seen as risking retaliatory action with adverse repercussions on international air transport which plays a major role in the development and expansion of international trade and travel.[12]
	GR No. 198759 2013-07-01	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. CIR PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
PAL counters that the doctrine laid down in Silkair is inapplicable, asserting that it has the legal personality to file the subject tax refund claim on account of its tax exemption privileges under its legislative franchise which covers both direct and indirect taxes. In support thereof, it cites the case of Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.[20] (Maceda).
	GR No. 188497 2012-04-25	CIR v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Petitioner elevated the case to the CTA En Banc which upheld the ruling of the First Division. The CTA pointed out the specific exemption mentioned under Section 135 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (NIRC) of petroleum products sold to international carriers such as respondent's clients. It said that this Court's ruling in Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.[8] is inapplicable because said case only put to rest the issue of whether or not the National Power Corporation (NPC) is subject to tax considering that NPC is a tax-exempt entity mentioned in Sec. 135 (c) of the NIRC (1997), whereas the present case involves the tax exemption of the sale of petroleum under Sec. 135 (a) of the same Code. Further, the CTA said that the ruling in Philippine Acetylene Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue[9] likewise finds no application because the party asking for the refund in said case was the seller-producer based on the exemption granted under the law to the tax-exempt buyers, NPC and Voice of America (VOA), whereas in this case it is the article or product which is exempt from tax and not the international carrier.
	GR Nos. 171383 & 172379 2008-11-14	SILKAIR PTE. LTD. v. CIR CARPIO, J.
Petitioner also cites this Court's Resolution in Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.,[16] quoting the opinion of the Secretary of Justice which states, thus:The view which refuses to accord the exemption because the tax is first paid by the seller disregards realities and gives more importance to form than substance. Equity and law always exalt substance over form.[17]
	GR NO. 165827 2006-06-16	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. PROVINCE OF ISABELA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed this petition for review with only the Province of Isabela as respondent. It ascribes the following error to the CA: THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION IS LIABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF FRANCHISE TAX UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.[12] Petitioner urges this Court to take a second look at its ruling in National Power Corporation v. City of Cabanatuan,[13] which held it liable for franchise tax by virtue of the LGC. It contends that Section 193 thereof did not withdraw the tax exemption provided under Section 13 of its charter, Rep. Act No. 6395, which provides: Section 13. Non-profit Character of the Corporation; Exemption from All Taxes, Duties, Fees, Imposts and Other Charges by the Government and Government Instrumentalities. - The Corporation shall be non-profit and shall devote all its returns from its capital investment as well as excess revenues from its operation, for expansion. To enable the Corporation to pay its indebtedness and obligations and in furtherance and effective implementation of the policy enunciated in Section One of this Act, the Corporation, including its subsidiaries, is hereby declared, exempt from the payment of all forms of taxes, duties, fees, imposts as well as costs and service fees including filing fees, appeal bonds, supersedeas bonds, in any court or administrative proceedings. Petitioner stresses that there was no provision in the LGC expressly repealing the said provision; neither was there an implied repeal thereof. It points out that repeals by implication are not favored. Moreover, a general law, such as the LGC, cannot repeal a special law, such as Rep. Act No. 6395, unless it clearly appears that the legislature intended to do so.[14] Petitioner argues that, in this case, there was clearly no intention to repeal; on the contrary, the intention to exempt it from local taxes is clearly manifest in said Section 13. This is bolstered by the Declaration of Policy which provides that "the total electrification of the Philippines through the development of power from all sources to meet the needs of industrial development and dispersal, and the needs of rural electrification are primary objectives of the nation which shall be pursued coordinately and supported by all instrumentalities of the government, including its financial institutions." In addition, petitioner cites the case of Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.[15] to show the intent of lawmakers to exempt it from all forms of taxes. Petitioner further maintains that it is a government-owned and controlled corporation with an original charter and its shares of stock are owned by the National Government; as such, it is exempt from local taxes.[16]
	GR No. 168056 2005-09-01	CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE VALUE ADDED TAX LAW AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In contrast, a direct tax is a tax for which a taxpayer is directly liable on the transaction or business it engages in, without transferring the burden to someone else.[11] Examples are individual and corporate income taxes, transfer taxes, and residence taxes.[12]
	GR NO. 154028 2005-08-29	PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL v. CIR QUISUMBING, J.
1.3 Interest income derived from any source.[7] This Supreme Court has confirmed this exemption. In Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.,[8] this Court ruled that Republic Act No. 358[9] exempts the NPC from all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, charges, and restrictions of the Republic of the Philippines, and its provinces, cities and municipalities. This exemption is broad enough to include both direct and indirect taxes the NPC may be required to pay. To limit the exemption granted the NPC to direct taxes, notwithstanding the general and broad language of the statute, will be to thwart the legislative intention in giving exemption from all forms of taxes and impositions, without distinguishing between those that are direct and those that are not.
	GR No. 154028 2005-07-29	PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL v. CIR QUISUMBING, J.
1.3 Interest income derived from any source.[7] This Supreme Court has confirmed this exemption. In Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.,[8] this Court ruled that Republic Act No. 358[9] exempts the NPC from all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, charges, and restrictions of the Republic of the Philippines, and its provinces, cities and municipalities. This exemption is broad enough to include both direct and indirect taxes the NPC may be required to pay. To limit the exemption granted the NPC to direct taxes, notwithstanding the general and broad language of the statute, will be to thwart the legislative intention in giving exemption from all forms of taxes and impositions, without distinguishing between those that are direct and those that are not.

ERNESTO M. MACEDA v. CATALINO MACARAIG