Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FELS ENERGY v. PROVINCE OF BATANGAS

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 169234 2013-10-02	CAMP JOHN HAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS PEREZ, J.
Time and again, the Supreme Court has stated that taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. The law does not look with favor on tax exemptions and the entity that would seek to be thus privileged must justify it by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted.[26] Thus applying the rule of strict construction of laws granting tax exemptions, and the rule that doubts should be resolved in favor of provincial corporations, this Court holds that petitioner is considered a taxable entity in this case.
	GR No. 169234 2013-10-02	CAMP JOHN HAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS PEREZ, J.
To reiterate, the restriction upon the power of courts to impeach tax assessment without a prior payment, under protest, of the taxes assessed is consistent with the doctrine that taxes are the lifeblood of the nation and as such their collection cannot be curtailed by injunction or any like action; otherwise, the state or, in this case, the local government unit, shall be crippled in dispensing the needed services to the people, and its machinery gravely disabled.[30] The right of local government units to collect taxes due must always be upheld to avoid severe erosion. This consideration is consistent with the State policy to guarantee the autonomy of local governments and the objective of RA No. 7160 or the LGC of 1991 that they enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to empower them to achieve their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them effective partners in the attainment of national goals.[31]
	GR No. 171586 2009-07-15	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. PROVINCE OF QUEZON BRION, J.
This case is not one of first impression. We have previously ruled against the NPC's claimed exemptions under the LGC in the cases of FELS Energy, Inc. v. Province of Batangas[8] and NPC v. CBAA.[9] Based on the principles we declared in those cases, as well as the defects we found in the NPC's tax assessment protest, we conclude that the petition lacks merit.
	GR No. 171470 2009-01-30	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF LA UNION BRION, J.
We note, in the first place, that the present case is not the first occasion where NAPOCOR claimed real property tax exemption for a contract partner under Sec. 234 (c) of the LGC. In FELS Energy, Inc. v. The Province of Batangas[11] (that was consolidated with NAPOCOR v. Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Batangas, et al.),[12] the Province of Batangas assessed real property taxes against FELS Energy, Inc. - the owner of a barge used in generating electricity under an agreement with NAPOCOR. Their agreement provided that NAPOCOR shall pay all of FELS' real estate taxes and assessments. We concluded in that case that we could not recognize the tax exemption claimed, since NAPOCOR was not the actual, direct and exclusive user of the barge as required by Sec. 234 (c). In making this ruling, we cited the required standard of construction applicable to tax exemptions and said:Time and again, the Supreme Court has stated that taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. The law does not look with favor on tax exemptions and the entity that would seek to be thus privileged must justify it by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted. Thus, applying the rule of strict construction of laws granting tax exemptions, and the rule that doubts should be resolved in favor of provincial corporations, we hold that FELS is considered a taxable entity.