ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
October-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-8532 October 11, 1957 - Guardianship of James E. Stegner v. CATHERINE STEGNER and MILDRED STEGNER

    102 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. L-9996 October 15, 1957 - EUFEMIA EVANGELISTA v. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    102 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-8974 October 18, 1957 - APOLONIO CABANSAG v. GEMINIANA MARIA FERNANDEZ

    102 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. L-10699 October 18, 1957 - WILLIAM H. BROWN v. JUANITA YAMBAO

    102 Phil 168

  • G.R. Nos. L-7906 & L-10176 October 22, 1957 - ENRIQUE KARE v. JOSE H. IMPERIAL

    102 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. L-10126 October 22, 1957 - SALUD VILLANUEVA VDA. DE BATACLAN v. MARIANO MEDINA

    102 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-7992 October 30, 1957 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LUZON INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION

    102 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. L-9346 October 30, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICANOR SESPEÑE

    102 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-9634 October 30, 1957 - APARECIO ALBUERA v. BERNARDO TORRES

    102 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. L-9685 October 30, 1957 - VISAYAN ELECTRIC CO. v. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    102 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. L-9831 October 30, 1957 - ISAAC PERAL BOWLING ALLEY v. UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION

    102 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-10212 October 30, 1957 - JOSE ARCHES v. MUNICIPAL JUDGE

    102 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. L-8086 October 31, 1957 - PACIFIC TOBACCO CORPORATION v. RICARDO D. LORENZANA

    102 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-8811 October 31, 1957 - THE ACTING COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. L-8847 October 31, 1957 - PEDRO P. RIVERA v. MUNICIPALITY OF MALOLOS

    102 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. L-8876 October 31, 1957 - ALLIED FREE WORKERS’ UNION v. HONORABLE JUDGE SEGUNDO APOSTOL

    102 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-9150 October 31, 1957 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. FRANCISCO STA. ANA

    102 Phil 302

  • G.R. No. L-9312 October 31, 1957 - ERNEST BERG v. NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK

    102 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. L-9402 October 31, 1957 - ELISEO DE LA CRUZ v. JACINTA ACOSTA MUYOT

    102 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. L-9510 October 31, 1957 - CIRILO ABRASIA v. GREGORIO CARIAN

    102 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. L-9981 October 31, 1957 - PHILIPPINE SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY v. ROYAL OIL PRODUCTS

    102 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. L-10006 October 31, 1957 - DIONISIA BAUTISTA v. HON. MINERVA R. INOCENCIO PIGUING

    102 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-10010 October 31, 1957 - Intestate Estate of Antonio Zuzuarregui. PILAR I. DE ZUZUARREGUI administratrix v. ENRIQUE ZUZUARREGUI ET AL.

    102 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. L-10071 October 31, 1957 - Testate Estate of Guillermo Puatu y Constantino v. DR. SANTIAGO T. PUATU

    102 Phil 363

  • G.R. Nos. L-10095 & L-10115 October 31, 1957 - PHIL. MARINE RADIO OFFICERS’ ASSN. v. PHIL. MARINE RADIO OFFICERS ASSN.

    102 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-10450 October 31, 1957 - SANTIAGO MEDRANA v. HON. GAVINO R. SEPULVEDA

    102 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-10790 October 31, 1957 - CHUNG TE & COMPANY v. LUZON SURETY COMPANY

    102 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-11005 October 31, 1957 - SIARI VALLEY ESTATES v. FILEMON LUCASAN

    102 Phil 390

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-9685   October 30, 1957 - VISAYAN ELECTRIC CO. v. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE<br /><br />102 Phil 217

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-9685. October 30, 1957.]

    VISAYAN ELECTRIC CO., S. A., Petitioner, v. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

    Vicente L. Faelnar for Petitioner.

    Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Jose P. Alejandro for Respondent.


    SYLLABUS


    1. TAXATION; FRANCHISE; TAX ON FRANCHISES APPROVED IN 1950. — In 1950, Congress has intended to impose the 5% franchise tax on business like that covered by franchise in the instant case. The reference to the terms and conditions found i Act 3636, as provided in petitioner’s franchise, did not incorporate section 10 of said Act providing for 2% franchise tax, because when petitioner’s franchise was granted in 1950, the original 2% tax fixed in Act 3636 had already been increased to 5% by section 259 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Republic Acts 39 and 418.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; EXEMPTION FROM INCOME TAX. — The holders of electric franchise are exempt from income tax. In view of the silence of Section 259 of the Tax Code, as amended Section 10 of Act 3636. There is nothing incompatible or conflicting between the increased franchise tax under 259 of the Tax Code and the exemption from any and all other taxes under Act 3636. Such exemption is part of the inducement for the acceptance of the franchise and the rendition of public service by the grantee.


    D E C I S I O N


    PARAS, C.J. :


    On October 20, 1952, the petitioner presented to the Collector of Internal Revenue three requests for the refund of P2,186.12, P5,979.32 and P260.46, representing alleged overpaid franchise taxes from April 1, 1950 to June 30, 1952, and the additional sum of P2,046.92, representing income tax.

    In the case of Carcar Electric and Ice Plant Company, Inc. v. The Collector of Internal Revenue (100 Phil., 50; 53 Off. Gaz., [4] 1068), we have concluded that Congress in 1950 had intended to impose the 5% franchise tax on business like that covered by franchises in the instant case. The reference to the terms and conditions found in Act 3636 (as provided in petitioner’s franchises) did not incorporate section 10 of said Act 3636 providing for 2% franchise tax, because when the franchise of Carcar Electric and Ice Plant Company (supra) was granted in 1950, the original 2% tax fixed in Act 3636 had already been increased to 5% by Section 259 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Republic Acts 39 and 418.

    As to the liability of the petitioner for the income tax, we have decided also in the case of Carcar Company (supra) that holders of electric franchises are exempt from said tax.

    In view of the silence of section 259 of the Tax Code, as amended, regarding tax exemptions, it could not have amended Section 10 of Act 3636. As we have held in the case of Carcar Company (supra), "there is nothing incompatible or conflicting between the increased franchise tax under 259 of the Tax Code and the exemption from any and all other taxes under Act 3636. Such exemption is part of the inducement for the acceptance of the franchise and the rendition of public service by the grantee."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It being understood, therefore, that the Collector of Internal Revenue is hereby ordered to return to the petitioner the sum of P2,046.92, representing income tax paid by it for the Dipolog electric plant during the year 1950, the appealed decision is in all other respects affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.

    Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-9685   October 30, 1957 - VISAYAN ELECTRIC CO. v. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE<br /><br />102 Phil 217


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED