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
 

   
May-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11219 May 7, 1958 - PACITA SALABARIA VDA. DE SUATARON v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY

    103 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-11580 May 9, 1958 - MARCELINO GABRIEL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    103 Phil 651

  • G.R. No. L-11231 May 12, 1958 - ROSARIO CARBONNEL v. JOSE PONCIO

    103 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. L-9531 May 14, 1958 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. GUILLERMO C. REYES

    103 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. L-11578 May 14, 1958 - GERONIMO AVECILLA v. HON. NICASIO YATCO

    103 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. L-11629 May 14, 1958 - CELEDONIO E. ESCUDERO v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO

    103 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. L-10559 May 16, 1958 - IN RE: YU NEAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-10657 May 16, 1958 - NUMERIANO L. VALERIANO, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION KERR, ET AL.

    103 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-11285 May 16, 1958 - VICENTE SAPTO v. APOLONIA FABIANA

    103 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-11924 May 16, 1958 - ISIDORO CEBRERO v. JOSE TALAMAN

    103 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-8776 May 19, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO CRUZ

    103 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-11539 May 19, 1958 - ARING BAGOBA v. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ

    103 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-11305 May 21, 1958 - DOMINADOR P. CANLAS, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-12375 May 21, 1958 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. L-8317 May 23, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUAN ABAD, ET AL.

    103 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. L-10286 May 23, 1958 - LUIS E. ARRIOLA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-10704 May 23, 1958 - SIMEON TAN LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. L-11036 May 23, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO TOLENTINO

    103 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-11060 May 23, 1958 - A. U. VALENCIA & Co. v. HERMINIA C. LAYUG, ET AL.

    103 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. L-11152 May 23, 1958 - BENITO CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-11442 May 23, 1958 - MANUELA T. VDA. DE SALVATIERRA v. LORENZO C. GARLITOS

    103 Phil 757

  • G.R. No. L-11504 May 23, 1958 - ELISEO SAULOG v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO

    103 Phil 765

  • G.R. No. L-7451 May 26, 1958 - HACIENDA LUISITA v. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

    103 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-10610 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SILVELA

    103 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-11361 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX SEMAÑADA

    103 Phil 790

  • G.R. No. L-8190 May 28, 1958 - GONZALO GARCIA v. CONSOLACION MANZANO

    103 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-9328 May 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO PAUNIL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-10322 May 28, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JACINTA ALVAREZ

    103 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-10574 May 28, 1958 - PANAY ELECTRIC CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-10931 May 28, 1958 - FLORENClA R. SORIANO v. ONG HOO

    103 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-10972 May 28, 1958 - IN RE: PERFECTO GOTAUCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-10989 May 28, 1958 - PONCIANO GACHO v. SERGIO OSMEÑA

    103 Phil 837

  • G.R. No. L-11112 May 28, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. LUZON SURETY COMPANY

    103 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. L-11271 May 28, 1958 - PAZ TY SIN TEI v. JOSE LEE DY PIAO

    103 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. L-11311 May 28, 1958 - MARTA C. ORTEGA v. DANIEL LEONARDO

    103 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-11412 May 28, 1958 - MAURICIA VDA. DE VILLANUEVA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    103 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-11427 May 28, 1958 - DIMAS REYES v. FIDEL D. DONES

    103 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-11491 May 28, 1958 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. BIENVENIDA JOCSON LAGNITON

    103 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11538 May 28, 1958 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. JEA COMMERCIAL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 894

  • G.R. No. L-11640 May 28, 1958 - CLAUDIO DEGOLLACION v. LI CHUI

    103 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11744 May 28, 1958 - PILAR GIL VDA. DE MURCIANO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    103 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-12196 May 28, 1958 - ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF BATAAN v. AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    103 Phil 914

  • G.R. Nos. L-12214-17 May 28, 1958 - MALIGAYA SHIP WATCHMEN AGENCY v. ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN AND SECURITY UNION (PTWO)

    103 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-12222 May 28, 1958 - UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    103 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-12289 May 28, 1958 - LIM SIOK HUEY v. ALFREDO LAPIZ

    103 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-12348 May 28, 1958 - MARIANO CORDOVA v. GREGORIO NARVASA

    103 Phil 935

  • G.R. No. L-13069 May 28, 1958 - JOVENCIO A. REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-12287 May 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    103 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-7955 May 30, 1958 - JOAQUIN LOPEZ v. ENRIQUE P. OCHOA

    103 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. L-8439 May 30, 1958 - CO CHO CHIT v. HANSON, ORTH & STEVENSON, INC., ET AL.

    103 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-10642 May 30, 1958 - IN RE: ALFREDO ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 964

  • G.R. Nos. L-10837-38 May 30, 1958 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. ISABEL IYA

    103 Phil 972

  • G.R. No. L-10952 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO V. LINGAD

    103 Phil 980

  • G.R. No. L-11073 May 30, 1958 - MELECIO ARCEO v. ANDRES E. VARELA

    103 Phil 990

  • G.R. No. L-11374 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSCORO PINUILA

    103 Phil 992

  • G.R. No. L-11444 May 30, 1958 - VICENTE ROULLO v. MARGARITO LUMAYNO

    103 Phil 1004

  • G.R. No. L-11498 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN J. RODRIGUEZ

    103 Phil 1008

  • G.R. Nos. L-11531-33 May 30, 1958 - MARIA CONCEPCION v. PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CP. INC.

    103 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-12053 May 30, 1958 - ROBERTA C. DIAZ v. JESUS Y. PEREZ

    103 Phil 1023

  • G.R. No. L-12081 May 30, 1958 - LORENZO LERMA v. VICTORIANO L. REYES, ET AL.

    103 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. L-12530 May 30, 1958 - CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HERMOGENES CALUAG

    103 Phil 1032

  • G.R. No. L-12567 May 30, 1958 - TAN GIN SAN v. ROSALIA A. TAN CARPIZO

    103 Phil 1042

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-11305   May  21, 1958 - DOMINADOR P. CANLAS, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. <br /><br />103 Phil 712

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-11305. May 21, 1958.]

    DOMINADOR P. CANLAS and THE MANILA PENCIL CO., as successor of the PHILIPPINE CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT LINES, INC., Petitioners, v. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and the HON. AUGUSTO P. LUCIANO and ROMAN UMALI, Associate Judges of the Court of Tax Appeals, Respondents.

    P. N. Evangelista, for Petitioners.

    Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla, Assistant Solicitor General José P. Alejandro and Special Attorney Librada del Rosario Natividad for Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. TAXATION; CONCESSIONAIRES EMBRACED WITHIN BASES AGREEMENT; EARNINGS DERIVED FROM UNDERTAKING SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX. — The defendant Manila Pencil Company, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, was engaged in and duly licensed by the U.S. military authorities to operate a freight and bus service within the Clark Field Air Base. And as such grantee of a franchise, which this Court has held to be embraced within the meaning of the word "concession" appearing in the bases agreement and was declared exempt from the payment of the contractor’s tax (Araneta v. Manila Pencil Company, G. R. No. L-8182, June 29, 1957), defendant corporation also claimed exemption from the payment of income tax on earnings derived from such undertaking, relying on the provision of Article XVIII of the Bases Agreement, providing, among others, that sales and services within the bases are free from all taxes and duties. Held: While it may be argued that a tax on the income derived from the operation of a concession falls under the term "other taxes" included in the enumeration of the imposts from which a Government agency or private concessioner (of which defendant corporation is considered as one) is exempted, yet a careful perusal of the same would reveal that what is being exempted from the payment of such exactions is the establishment of the agency or concession designed for the exclusive use of the U.S. military forces and authorized civil personnel and their families. Considering that the concession itself and the income accruing therefrom are subject to different taxes, and taking into account the sentence following the enumeration which specifies the "merchandise or services sold or dispensed by such agencies" to be free from taxes or duties, it becomes all too obvious that the privilege is intended merely to be confined to the latter and to no other. Inclusio unius exclusio est alterius. Moreover, exemption from income tax is treated separately under Article XII of the treaty which grants exemption from income taxes only to members of the U. S. armed forces, nationals of said country, and their dependents and families to the exclusion of Filipino citizens.


    D E C I S I O N


    FELIX, J.:


    The Manila Pencil Company, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines with Dominador P. Canlas for its president and general manager, appears to be the successor in interest of the Philippine Consolidated Freight Lines, Inc., assuming all the obligations the latter had with third parties in connection with its past operation. From 1947 to 1951, the Philippine Consolidated Freight Lines, Inc., ran a bus and trucking service within the compound of the Clark Field Air Base in Pampanga pursuant to a license issued in its favor by the Philippine Ryukyus Command (PHILRYCOM). For income derived from said operation, the corporation filed its income tax returns and was assessed as follows: P4,285.74 for the fiscal year ending August 31, 1947; P21,733.66, for the fiscal year ending August 31, 1948; P7,933.57 and P3,332.00, for the fiscal years ending August 31, 1949, and August 31, 1951, respectively. It appears on record that of these assessments said company paid the amount of P4,000.00 as part payment of the income tax allegedly due for 1947.

    On March 24, 1954, the Solicitor General filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 22366) against the Manila Pencil Company, as successor-in-interest of the Philippine Consolidated Freight Lines, Inc., and Dominador Canlas as president thereof, contending that despite repeated demands, they had failed to pay the following amounts which were said to be due the Government as income taxes, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (1) Deficiency income tax for fiscal

    year ending August 31, 1947 P1,084.97

    (2) Income tax for fiscal year ending

    August 31, 1947 285.74

    (3) Income tax for fiscal year ending

    August 31,1948 21,733.66

    (4) Income tax for fiscal year ending

    August 31, 1949 7,933.57

    (5) Income tax for fiscal year ending

    August 31, 1951 3,332.00

    It was thus prayed that defendants be ordered to pay the obligations so indicated plus the corresponding delinquency penalties and for costs. To this complaint, defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on prescription and for lack of jurisdiction, but before said motion could be resolved, Republic Act No. 1125 creating the Court of Tax Appeals was enacted and pursuant to Section 22 thereof, said case was elevated to the latter Tribunal for adjudication.

    As the motion for the dismissal of the action was denied, defendants filed their answer claiming that the income on which plaintiff was trying to collect were received exclusively from the operation of its freight and passenger bus service within the Clark Field Air Base and therefore embraced within the exemption provided for by Article XVIII of the Military Bases Agreement concluded between the governments of the Philippines and the United States. Defendants prayed the Court that plaintiff be required to refund to defendant Manila Pencil Company the sum of P2,350.74 illegally collected; that AISCO Bond No. 4419 of the Associated Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., in favor of the Collector of Internal Revenue, which defendants filed to prevent the distraint of their properties pending the final disposition of the case, be cancelled; and in the event that the Court would find a case against the Manila Pencil Company, defendant Dominador P. Canlas be excluded therein.

    The issues having been joined, the case was set for hearing and basing on the stipulation of facts agreed upon by the parties, the Court of Tax Appeals rendered judgment holding defendants liable for the payment of the deficiency income tax for 1947 and for income taxes for the years 1949 and 1951, although they were absolved of the liability with respect to the income taxes for the years 1947 and 1948 on the ground of prescription. Upon defendants’ motion for reconsideration, said decision was modified so as to deduct from the amount said to be due the Government the sum of P3,526.47 secured by the AISCO Bond No. 4419 which was already received by the Collector of Internal Revenue. But as defendants’ asseveration that they were totally exempted from the payment of said taxes was denied, the matter was brought to this Court by way of a petition for review, praying that the decision of the court a quo be declared erroneous and the Collector of Internal Revenue be required to refund the amount of P2,350.74 allegedly collected illegally from them and for such other relief as may be proper in the premises.

    There is no dispute as to the fact that defendant Manila Pencil Company, as successor-in-interest of the Philippine Consolidated Freight Lines, Inc., was engaged in and duly licensed by the U. S. military authorities to operate a freight and bus service within the Clark Field Air Base, a military reservation established in conformity with the agreement concluded between the Governments of the Philippines and the United States on March 14, 1947 (43 Off. Gaz., No. 3, p. 1020). And as such granted of a franchise, which this Court has held to be embraced within the meaning of the word "concession" appearing in the treaty and was declared exempted from the payment of the contractor’s tax (Araneta v. Manila Pencil Company, G. R. No. L- 8182, June 29, 1957), defendant corporation also claimed exemption from the payment of income tax on earnings derived from such undertaking. In advancing such contention, defendants relied on the provisions of Article XVIII of the Bases Agreement the pertinent portion of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "ARTICLE XVIII. — SALES AND SERVICES WITHIN THE BASES

    "1. It is mutually agreed that the United States shall have the right to establish on bases, free of all licenses; fees; sales, excise or OTHER TAXES, or imposts; Government agencies, including concessions, such as sales commissaries and posts exchanges, messes and social clubs, for the exclusive use of the United States military forces and authorized civilian personnel and their families. The merchandise or services sold or dispensed by such agencies shall be free of all taxes, duties and inspection by the Philippine authorities. . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    While it may be argued that a tax on the income derived from the operation of a concession falls under the term "other taxes" included in the enumeration of the imposts from which a Government agency or private concessioner (of which defendant corporation is considered as one) is exempted, yet a careful perusal of the same would reveal that what is being exempted from the payment of such exactions is the establishment of the agency or concession designed for the exclusive use of the U.S. military forces and authorized civil personnel and their families. Considering that the concession itself and the income accruing therefrom are subject to different taxes, and taking into account the sentence following the enumeration which specifies the "merchandise or services sold or dispensed by such agencies" to be free from taxes or duties, it becomes all too obvious that the privilege is intended merely to be confined to the latter and to no other. Inclusio unius exclusio est alterius. Moreover, exemption from income tax is treated separately under a different provision of the treaty which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "ARTICLE XII. — INTERNAL REVENUE TAX EXEMPTION

    "1. No member of the United States armed forces, EXCEPT Filipino citizens, serving in the Philippines in connection with the bases and residing in the Philippines by reason only of such service, or his dependents, shall be liable to pay income tax in the Philippines except in respect of income derived from Philippines sources.

    "2. No national of the United States serving in or employed in the Philippines in connection with the construction, maintenance, operation or defense of the bases and residing in the Philippines by reason only of such employment, or his spouse, shall be liable to pay income tax in the Philippine except in respect of income derived from Philippine sources or sources other than the United States sources.

    3. . . .

    4. . . .

    It is clear from the foregoing that if ever the signatories to the said treaty intended to grant exemption from income taxes collectible by the Philippine Government, said privilege was allowed only to members of the United States armed forces, nationals of said country, and their dependents and families, to the exclusion of Filipino citizens. And it dispels the least doubt, if there may be any as to the merit of defendant’s claim, for the insertion of the phrase "other taxes" is manifestly intended to cover imposts other than sales or excise taxes on the undertaking itself and not taxes on income which is specially taken care of by another provision of the same treaty.

    Wherefore, the appealed decision of the lower Court, as corrected by its resolution of September 10, 1956, is hereby affirmed, with costs against defendants. It is so ordered.

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

    G.R. No. L-11305   May  21, 1958 - DOMINADOR P. CANLAS, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. <br /><br />103 Phil 712


    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