Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. CITY OF DAVAO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 155491 2009-07-21	SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. CITY OF DAVAO NACHURA, J.
In ruling against the claim of PLDT, the Court cited the previous decisions in PLDT v. City of Davao[12] and PLDT v. City of Bacolod,[13] in denying the claim for exemption from the payment of local franchise tax.
	GR No. 167260 2009-02-27	CITY OF ILOILO v. COMMUNICATIONS BRION, J.
Whether Section 23 of the cited law extends tax exemptions granted by Congress to new franchise holders to existing ones has been answered in the negative in the case of PLDT v. City of Davao.[22] The term "exemption" in Section 23 of the Public Telecoms Act does not mean tax exemption; rather, it refers to exemption from certain regulatory or reporting requirements imposed by government agencies such as the National Telecommunications Commission. The thrust of the Public Telecoms Act is to promote the gradual deregulation of entry, pricing, and operations of all public telecommunications entities, and thus to level the playing field in the telecommunications industry. The language of Section 23 and the proceedings of both Houses of Congress are bereft of anything that would signify the grant of tax exemptions to all telecommunications entities.[23] Intent to grant tax exemption cannot therefore be discerned from the law; the term "exemption" is too general to include tax exemption and runs counter to the requirement that the grant of tax exemption should be stated in clear and unequivocal language too plain to be beyond doubt or mistake.
	GR No. 155491 2008-09-16	SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. CITY OF DAVAO NACHURA, J.
Tax exemptions are never presumed and are strictly construed against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority.[22] They can only be given force when the grant is clear and categorical.[23] The surrender of the power to tax, when claimed, must be clearly shown by a language that will admit of no reasonable construction consistent with the reservation of the power. If the intention of the legislature is open to doubt, then the intention of the legislature must be resolved in favor of the State.[24]