Lawyerly

GR No. 166102

2015-08-05

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CITY ASSESSOR

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

MERALCO, a private corporation engaged in electric distribution, and its transformers, electric posts, transmission lines, insulators, and electric meters used commercially do not qualify under any of the ownership, character, and usage exemptions enumerated in Section 234 of the Local Government Code. It is a basic precept of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others as expressed in the familiar maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius.[45] Not being among the recognized exemptions from real property tax in Section 234 of the Local Government Code, then the exemption of the transformers, electric posts, transmission lines, insulators, and electric meters of MERALCO from real property tax granted under its franchise was among the exemptions withdrawn upon the effectivity of the Local Government Code on January 1, 1998.

GR No. 175356

2013-12-03

MANILA MEMORIAL PARK v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Petitioners also contend that the tax deduction scheme violates Article XV, Section 4[21] and Article XIII, Section 11[22] of the Constitution because it shifts the State's constitutional mandate or duty of improving the welfare of the elderly to the private sector.[23] Under the tax deduction scheme, the private sector shoulders 65% of the discount because only 35%[24] of it is actually returned by the government.[25] Consequently, the implementation of the tax deduction scheme prescribed under Section 4 of RA 9257 affects the businesses of petitioners.[26] Thus, there exists an actual case or controversy of transcendental importance which deserves judicious disposition on the merits by the highest court of the land.[27]

GR No. 183137

2013-04-10

PELIZLOY REALTY CORPORATION v. PROVINCE OF BENGUET

LEONEN, J.

[12] National Power Corporation v. City of Cabanatuan, 449 Phil. 233, 248 (2003), citing Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 120082, September 11. 1996, 261 SCRA 667, 680, citing Cruz, Isagani A., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (1991) at 84.

GR No. 192945

2012-09-05

CITY OF IRIGA v. CAMARINES SUR III ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

In National Power Corporation v. City of Cabanatuan,[29] the Court declared that "a franchise tax is 'a tax on the privilege of transacting business in the state and exercising corporate franchises granted by the state.'"[30] It is not levied on the corporation simply for existing as a corporation, upon its property or its income, but on its exercise of the rights or privileges granted to it by the government.[31] "It is within this context that the phrase „tax on businesses enjoying a franchise. in Section 137 of the LGC should be interpreted and understood."[32]

GR No. 172087

2011-03-15

PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. BIR

PERALTA, J.

Taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception.[23] The burden of proof rests upon the party claiming exemption to prove that it is, in fact, covered by the exemption so claimed.[24] As a rule, tax exemptions are construed strongly against the claimant.[25] Exemptions must be shown to exist clearly and categorically, and supported by clear legal provision.[26]

GR No. 160756

2010-03-09

CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO ROMULO

CORONA, J.

Taxes are the lifeblood of the government. Without taxes, the government can neither exist nor endure. The exercise of taxing power derives its source from the very existence of the State whose social contract with its citizens obliges it to promote public interest and the common good.[33]

GR No. 171470

2009-01-30

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF LA UNION

BRION, J.

We also recognized this strictissimi juris standard in NAPOCOR v. City of Cabanatuan.[13] Under this standard, the claimant must show beyond doubt, with clear and convincing evidence, the factual basis for the claim. Thus, the real issue in a tax exemption case such as the present case is whether NAPOCOR was able to convincingly show the factual basis for its claimed exception.

GR No. 168584

2007-10-15

REPUBLIC v. RAMON S. CAGUIOA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The power to tax emanates from necessity; without taxes, government cannot fulfill its mandate of promoting the general welfare and well-being of the people.[59] That the enforcement of tax laws and the collection of taxes are of paramount importance for the sustenance of government has been repeatedly observed. Taxes being the lifeblood of the government that should be collected without unnecessary hindrance,[60] every precaution must be taken not to unduly suppress it.

GR NO. 159796

2007-07-17

ROMEO P. GERICHI v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)

NACHURA, J.

The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is unlimited in its range, acknowledging in its very nature no limits, so that security against its abuse is to be found only in the responsibility of the legislature which imposes the tax on the constituency that is to pay it.[30] It is based on the principle that taxes are the lifeblood of the government, and their prompt and certain availability is an imperious need.[31] Thus, the theory behind the exercise of the power to tax emanates from necessity; without taxes, government cannot fulfill its mandate of promoting the general welfare and well-being of the people.[32]

GR NO. 134062

2007-04-17

CIR v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

CORONA, J.

Taxes are the lifeblood of the government, for without taxes, the government can neither exist nor endure. A principal attribute of sovereignty, the exercise of taxing power derives its source from the very existence of the state whose social contract with its citizens obliges it to promote public interest and common good. The theory behind the exercise of the power to tax emanates from necessity; without taxes, government cannot fulfill its mandate of promoting the general welfare and well-being of the people.[40] WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The May 29, 1998 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41025 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

GR No. 152675

2004-04-28

BATANGAS POWER CORPORATION v. BATANGAS CITY

PUNO, J.

We find no merit in these contentions. The effect of the LGC on the tax exemption privileges of the NPC has already been extensively discussed and settled in the recent case of National Power Corporation v. City of Cabanatuan.[21] In said case, this Court recognized the removal of the blanket exclusion of government instrumentalities from local taxation as one of the most significant provisions of the 1991 LGC. Specifically, we stressed that Section 193 of the LGC,[22] an express and general repeal of all statutes granting exemptions from local taxes, withdrew the sweeping tax privileges previously enjoyed by the NPC under its Charter. We explained the rationale for this provision, thus:In recent years, the increasing social challenges of the times expanded the scope of state activity, and taxation has become a tool to realize social justice and the equitable distribution of wealth, economic progress and the protection of local industries as well as public welfare and similar objectives. Taxation assumes even greater significance with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. Thenceforth, the power to tax is no longer vested exclusively on Congress; local legislative bodies are now given direct authority to levy taxes, fees and other charges pursuant to Article X, section 5 of the 1987 Constitution, viz:

	GR No. 166102 2015-08-05	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CITY ASSESSOR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
MERALCO, a private corporation engaged in electric distribution, and its transformers, electric posts, transmission lines, insulators, and electric meters used commercially do not qualify under any of the ownership, character, and usage exemptions enumerated in Section 234 of the Local Government Code. It is a basic precept of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others as expressed in the familiar maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius.[45] Not being among the recognized exemptions from real property tax in Section 234 of the Local Government Code, then the exemption of the transformers, electric posts, transmission lines, insulators, and electric meters of MERALCO from real property tax granted under its franchise was among the exemptions withdrawn upon the effectivity of the Local Government Code on January 1, 1998.
	GR No. 175356 2013-12-03	MANILA MEMORIAL PARK v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petitioners also contend that the tax deduction scheme violates Article XV, Section 4[21] and Article XIII, Section 11[22] of the Constitution because it shifts the State's constitutional mandate or duty of improving the welfare of the elderly to the private sector.[23] Under the tax deduction scheme, the private sector shoulders 65% of the discount because only 35%[24] of it is actually returned by the government.[25] Consequently, the implementation of the tax deduction scheme prescribed under Section 4 of RA 9257 affects the businesses of petitioners.[26] Thus, there exists an actual case or controversy of transcendental importance which deserves judicious disposition on the merits by the highest court of the land.[27]
	GR No. 183137 2013-04-10	PELIZLOY REALTY CORPORATION v. PROVINCE OF BENGUET LEONEN, J.
[12] National Power Corporation v. City of Cabanatuan, 449 Phil. 233, 248 (2003), citing Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 120082, September 11. 1996, 261 SCRA 667, 680, citing Cruz, Isagani A., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (1991) at 84.
	GR No. 192945 2012-09-05	CITY OF IRIGA v. CAMARINES SUR III ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In National Power Corporation v. City of Cabanatuan,[29] the Court declared that "a franchise tax is 'a tax on the privilege of transacting business in the state and exercising corporate franchises granted by the state.'"[30] It is not levied on the corporation simply for existing as a corporation, upon its property or its income, but on its exercise of the rights or privileges granted to it by the government.[31] "It is within this context that the phrase „tax on businesses enjoying a franchise. in Section 137 of the LGC should be interpreted and understood."[32]
	GR No. 172087 2011-03-15	PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. BIR PERALTA, J.
Taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception.[23] The burden of proof rests upon the party claiming exemption to prove that it is, in fact, covered by the exemption so claimed.[24] As a rule, tax exemptions are construed strongly against the claimant.[25] Exemptions must be shown to exist clearly and categorically, and supported by clear legal provision.[26]
	GR No. 160756 2010-03-09	CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO ROMULO CORONA, J.
Taxes are the lifeblood of the government. Without taxes, the government can neither exist nor endure. The exercise of taxing power derives its source from the very existence of the State whose social contract with its citizens obliges it to promote public interest and the common good.[33]
	GR No. 171470 2009-01-30	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF LA UNION BRION, J.
We also recognized this strictissimi juris standard in NAPOCOR v. City of Cabanatuan.[13] Under this standard, the claimant must show beyond doubt, with clear and convincing evidence, the factual basis for the claim. Thus, the real issue in a tax exemption case such as the present case is whether NAPOCOR was able to convincingly show the factual basis for its claimed exception.
	GR No. 168584 2007-10-15	REPUBLIC v. RAMON S. CAGUIOA CARPIO MORALES, J.
The power to tax emanates from necessity; without taxes, government cannot fulfill its mandate of promoting the general welfare and well-being of the people.[59] That the enforcement of tax laws and the collection of taxes are of paramount importance for the sustenance of government has been repeatedly observed. Taxes being the lifeblood of the government that should be collected without unnecessary hindrance,[60] every precaution must be taken not to unduly suppress it.
	GR NO. 159796 2007-07-17	ROMEO P. GERICHI v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) NACHURA, J.
The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is unlimited in its range, acknowledging in its very nature no limits, so that security against its abuse is to be found only in the responsibility of the legislature which imposes the tax on the constituency that is to pay it.[30] It is based on the principle that taxes are the lifeblood of the government, and their prompt and certain availability is an imperious need.[31] Thus, the theory behind the exercise of the power to tax emanates from necessity; without taxes, government cannot fulfill its mandate of promoting the general welfare and well-being of the people.[32]
	GR NO. 134062 2007-04-17	CIR v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS CORONA, J.
Taxes are the lifeblood of the government, for without taxes, the government can neither exist nor endure. A principal attribute of sovereignty, the exercise of taxing power derives its source from the very existence of the state whose social contract with its citizens obliges it to promote public interest and common good. The theory behind the exercise of the power to tax emanates from necessity; without taxes, government cannot fulfill its mandate of promoting the general welfare and well-being of the people.[40] WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The May 29, 1998 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41025 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
	GR No. 152675 2004-04-28	BATANGAS POWER CORPORATION v. BATANGAS CITY PUNO, J.
We find no merit in these contentions. The effect of the LGC on the tax exemption privileges of the NPC has already been extensively discussed and settled in the recent case of National Power Corporation v. City of Cabanatuan.[21] In said case, this Court recognized the removal of the blanket exclusion of government instrumentalities from local taxation as one of the most significant provisions of the 1991 LGC. Specifically, we stressed that Section 193 of the LGC,[22] an express and general repeal of all statutes granting exemptions from local taxes, withdrew the sweeping tax privileges previously enjoyed by the NPC under its Charter. We explained the rationale for this provision, thus:In recent years, the increasing social challenges of the times expanded the scope of state activity, and taxation has become a tool to realize social justice and the equitable distribution of wealth, economic progress and the protection of local industries as well as public welfare and similar objectives. Taxation assumes even greater significance with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. Thenceforth, the power to tax is no longer vested exclusively on Congress; local legislative bodies are now given direct authority to levy taxes, fees and other charges pursuant to Article X, section 5 of the 1987 Constitution, viz:

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. CITY OF CABANATUAN