Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DIGITAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES v. PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 155491 2009-07-21	SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. CITY OF DAVAO NACHURA, J.
In Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (Digitel) v. Province of Pangasinan,[7] Digitel used as an argument the "in lieu of all taxes" clauses/provisos found in the legislative franchises of Globe,[8] Smart and Bell,[9] vis-à-vis Section 23 of RA 7925, in order to claim exemption from the payment of local franchise tax. Digitel claimed, just like the petitioner in this case, that it was exempt from the payment of any other taxes except the national franchise and income taxes. Digitel alleged that Smart was exempted from the payment of local franchise tax.
	GR No. 167260 2009-02-27	CITY OF ILOILO v. COMMUNICATIONS BRION, J.
Nonetheless, even if Section 9 of SMART's franchise can be construed as covering local taxes as well, reliance thereon would now be unavailing. The "in lieu of all taxes" clause basically exempts SMART from paying all other kinds of taxes for as long as it pays the 3% franchise tax; it is the franchise tax that shall be in lieu of all taxes, and not any other form of tax.[16] Franchise taxes on telecommunications companies, however, have been abolished by R.A. No. 7716 or the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law (E-VAT Law), which was enacted by Congress on January 1, 1996.[17] To replace the franchise tax, the E-VAT Law imposed a 10%[18] value-added tax on telecommunications companies under Section 108 of the National Internal Revenue Code.[19] The "in lieu of all taxes" clause in the legislative franchise of SMART has thus become functus officio, made inoperative for lack of a franchise tax.[20]
	GR No.156040 2008-12-11	CITY GOVERNMENT OF BATANG CARPIO, J.
In Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (Digitel) v. Province of Pangasinan ,[64] this Court's Third Division ruled that Digitel's real properties located within the territorial jurisdiction of Pangasinan that are actually, directly and exclusively used in its franchise are exempt from realty tax under the first sentence of Section 5 of RA 7678. The Third Division explained thus:The more pertinent issue to consider is whether or not, by passing Republic Act No. 7678, Congress intended to exempt petitioner DIGITEL's real properties actually, directly and exclusively used by the grantee in its franchise.
	GR No. 155491 2008-09-16	SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. CITY OF DAVAO NACHURA, J.
We find no reason to disturb the previous pronouncements of this Court regarding the interpretation of Section 23 of R.A. No. 7925. As aptly explained in the en banc decision of this Court in Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. v. City of Davao,[40] and recently in Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (Digitel) v. Province of Pangasinan ,[41] Congress, in approving Section 23 of R.A. No. 7925, did not intend it to operate as a blanket tax exemption to all telecommunications entities.[42] The language of Section 23 of R.A. No. 7925 and the proceedings of both Houses of Congress are bereft of anything that would signify the grant of tax exemptions to all telecommunications entities, including those whose exemptions had been withdrawn by R.A. No. 7160.[43] The term "exemption" in Section 23 of R.A. No. 7925 does not mean tax exemption. The term refers to exemption from certain regulations and requirements imposed by the National Telecommunications Commission.[44]