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-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 3745 October 2, 1995 - CYNTHIA B. ROSACIA v. BENJAMIN B. BULALACAO

  • G.R. No. 94702 October 2, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO ACUÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97143 October 2, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO FIGUEROA

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1325 October 4, 1995 - PABLO ESPAÑOLA v. VINCENT EDEN C. PANAY

  • G.R. No. 102672 October 4, 1995 - PANAY ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118533 October 4, 1995 - PABLO R OLIVAREZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • Adm. Case No. 4405 October 6, 1995 - BIENVENIDO SANCHEZ v. GALILEO P. BRION

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-972 October 6, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MA. GORGONIA L. FLORES

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1006 October 6, 1995 - LERMA CHUA MARTINEZ v. ALDO MUÑOZ

  • G.R. No. 76490 October 6, 1995 - ISAGANI SABINIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104604 & 111223 October 6, 1995 - NARCISO O. JAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110634 October 6, 1995 - RUFINO O. ESLAO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. Nos. 111206-08 October 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, JR.

  • G.R. No. 116183 October 6, 1995 - RICARDO T. GLORIA v. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 117092 October 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO C. LAO

  • G.R. Nos. 118712 & 118745 October 6, 1995 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 120319 October 6, 1995 - LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK v. ASS’N. OF LUZON DEV’T. BANK EMPLOYEES, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1033 October 10, 1995 - MARIBETH CORDOVA, ET AL. v. EMMA C. LABAYEN

  • G.R. No. 117732 October 10, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS C. SALILING

  • G.R. No. 93915 October 11, 1995 - AUGUSTO EVANGELISTA v. NLRC

  • G.R. No. 99049 October 11, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO A. BARQUILLA

  • G.R. No. 117009 October 11, 1995 - SECURITY BANK & TRUST COMPANY, ET AL., v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118013-14 October 11, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMOSTHENES L. MAGALLANES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99263 October 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PACIFICO R. LAZARO

  • G.R. Nos. 119987-88 October 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO B. VENERACION

  • Adm. Case No. 4380 October 13, 1995 - NICANOR GONZALES, ET AL., v. MIGUEL SABACAJAN

  • G.R. No. 103911 October 13, 1995 - EDGARDO E. LOPEZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 109373 & 112991 October 13, 1995 - PACIFIC BANKING CORP. EMPLOYEES ORG., ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110015 October 13, 1995 - MANILA BAY CLUB CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 107101 October 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLO S. RODICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108515 October 16, 1995 - LUIS BALANTAKBO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110053 October 16, 1995 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 110544 October 17, 1995 - REYNALDO V. TUANDA, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 105649 October 18, 1995 - FLORO ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111634 October 18, 1995 - KOMATSU INDUSTRIES (PHIL.), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116062 October 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERTO BANTISIL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 116462 October 18, 1995 - RENO FOODS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116910 October 18, 1995 - INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., ET. AL. v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 114841-42 October 20, 1995 - ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC CO. OF MANILA, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103915 October 23, 1995 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. TELEFUNKEN SEMICONDUCTOR PHIL., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106477 October 23, 1995 - GLOBE GENERAL SERVICES AND SECURITY AGENCY, ET AL. v. NLRC

  • G.R. No. 111837 October 24, 1995 - NEW YORK MARINE MANAGERS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112969-70 October 24, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO PADRE-E

  • G.R. No. 118584 October 24, 1995 - AURELIA S. GOMEZ v. PRESIDING JUDGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120823 October 24, 1995 - HADJI HAMID PATORAY v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-716 October 25, 1995 - MA. BLYTH B. ABADILLA v. JOSE C. TABILIRAN, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-892 October 25, 1995 - SAN MANUEL WOOD PRODUCTS, INC. v. RAMON B. TUPAS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-907 October 25, 1995 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL. v. JOSELITO SD. GENEROSO, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-979 October 25, 1995 - EMERITO M. AGCAOILI v. ADOLFO B. MOLINA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1081 October 25, 1995 - VIRGINIA E. BURGOS v. JOSEFINA R. AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 95573 October 25, 1995 - GSIS v. NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99058 October 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIXBERTO FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102976 October 25, 1995 - IRON AND STEEL AUTHORITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 110815-16 October 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY SINATAO

  • G.R. No. 111688 October 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO @ "FELITOY" BRIOL, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 112713 October 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE TAMPARONG, JR.

  • G.R. No. 108115 October 27, 1995 - PHILIPPINE SOAP BOX DERBY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117083 October 27, 1995 - LAZARO V. KAVINTA v. PRUDENCIO ALTRE CASTILLO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 112448 October 30, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115455, 115525, 115543, 115544, 115754, 115781, 115852, 115873 & 115931 October 30, 1995 - ARTURO M. TOLENTINO v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 103915   October 23, 1995 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. TELEFUNKEN SEMICONDUCTOR PHIL., INC., ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 103915. October 23, 1995.]

    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. TELEFUNKEN SEMICONDUCTOR PHILIPPINES, INC., COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

    The Solicitor General for Petitioner.

    Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez and Gatmaitan for Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. TAXATION; TAX INCENTIVES; SEC. 7, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6135 AND SEC. 8 (A), REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5186; WHEN CONSTRUED TOGETHER SHALL PROVIDE FOR EXEMPTION FROM CONTRACTORIS TAX BASED ON GROSS RECEIPTS. — Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6135 (the law under which Telefunken is registered) provides that registered export producers in a pioneer status are entitled to the incentives provided in Section 8 (a) of Republic Act No. 5186. The Court finds no ambiguity in the law. When construed together, the above-quoted provisions yield no other conclusion but that gross receipts of a pioneer enterprise registered with the Board of Investments, such as Telefunken, are exempt from the contractor’s tax. This is in accordance with the policy of the government, as declared in Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6135. There is no difference between the gross receipts of pioneer enterprises registered with the Board of Investments under Republic Act No. 6135 and the gross receipts of registered pioneer enterprises under Republic Act No. 5186.

    2. ID.; BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE; WHEN RULINGS MAY NOT BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT. — Under Sec. 246 of the National Internal Revenue Code, rulings of the BIR may not be given retroactive effect if the same is prejudicial to the taxpayer.


    D E C I S I O N


    ROMERO, J.:


    This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals which ordered petitioner to grant a tax credit to private respondent Telefunken Semiconductors Philippines, Inc. (TELEFUNKEN) amount of P2,482,042.35 representing contractor’s tax allegedly paid erroneously for the period October 1979 to September 1981.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    The undisputed facts, as found by respondent Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), are follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Private respondent Telefunken is a domestic corporation registered with the Board of Investments (BOI) as an export producer on a preferred pioneer status under Republic Act No. 6135.

    From October 1979 to September 1981, Telefunken produced semi-conductor devices amounting to P92,843,774.00 which were entirely sold to foreign markets.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

    It filed percentage tax returns on the said exportation declaring a total of P2,482,042.35 as contractor’s tax, which was paid and verified to have been received by the government.

    Telefunken wrote a letter to the Appellate Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) dated January 19, 1982 stating that the payment of contractor’s tax of P2,482,042.35 was erroneous and requested its refund or tax credit thereof. Telefunken contended that under the provisions of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6135 in relation to Section 8 (a) of Republic Act No. 5186 (The Investment Act), it was exempted from the payment of all national internal revenue taxes for the period in question, except for income tax.

    The sole issue raised by petitioner is whether or not Telefunken, a corporation registered under Republic Act No. 6135 as a pioneer export producer, was exempted from payment of the 3% contractor’s tax from October 1979 to September 1981.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    The controlling statute is Section 205 (16) of the 1977 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), which states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SECTION 205. Contractors, proprietors or operators of dockyards and others. — A contractor’s tax of three percentum of gross receipts is hereby imposed on the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    (16) Business agents and other independent contractors including private detective or watchman agencies, except gross receipts of a pioneer enterprise registered with the Board of Investments under Republic Act 5186." (As amended by P.D. No. 1457, June 11, 1978)

    Petitioner argues that the law speaks of firms registered under Republic Act No. 5186 and thus, the privilege of tax exemption cannot be made to apply to firms registered under Republic Act No. 6135. Specifically, he states that Telefunken is not covered by the Tax Code exemption because "exemption from contractor’s tax is extended to pioneer enterprises registered with the Board of Investments under Republic Act No. 5186 in relation to Section 205 of the Tax Code." chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

    Firms, such as Telefunken, registered under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6135 were entitled to a tax exemption, except income tax, only on a graduated basis. This graduated scale is set out in Section 8 (a) of Republic Act No. 5186:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SECTION 8. Incentives to a Pioneer Enterprise. — In addition to the incentives provided in the preceding section, pioneer enterprises shall be granted the following incentive benefits:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (a) Tax Exemption. — Exemption from all taxes under the National Internal Revenue Code, except income tax, from the date the area of investment is included in the Investment Priorities Plan, to the following extent:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (1) One hundred per cent (100%) for the first five years;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    (2) Seventy-five percent (75%) for the sixth through the eight year;

    (3) Fifty per cent (50%) for the ninth and tenth years.

    (4) Twenty per cent (20%) for the eleventh and twelfth years; and

    (5) Ten per cent (10%) for the thirteenth through the fifteenth year.

    Provided, That the above schedule shall apply only to enterprises registered in areas included for the first time in the sixth or subsequent Investment Priorities Plan or therein carried over from the previous Investment Priorities Plan. Provided, however, That in areas previously declared preferred and/or carried over the sixth or subsequent Investment Priorities Plan and wherein enterprises have already registered, the exemption herein provided shall be as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (1) One hundred per cent up to December 31, 1972;

    (2) Seventy-five percent up to December 31, 1975;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    (3) Fifty per cent up to December 31, 1977;

    (4) Twenty per cent up to December 31, 1979;

    (5) Ten per cent up to December 31, 1981.

    Provided, further, That subject to the approval of the National Economic and Development Authority, the Board may extend the duration of the tax exemption provided in any bracket for pioneer projects whose total costs would exceed one hundred million pesos (P100,000,000.00), subject to the condition that in no case shall the total period of exemption herein exceed twenty (20) years. (As amended by Presidential Decree No. 92 of January 6, 1973)" chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Petitioner contends that for Telefunken to qualify for total exemption, aside from its registration under Republic Act No. 6135 it must also be registered with the BOI under Republic Act No. 5186.

    We find petitioner’s contentions to be devoid of merit.

    Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6135 (the law under which Telefunken is registered) provides that registered export producers in a pioneer status are entitled to the incentives provided in Section 8 (a) of Republic Act No. 5168.

    It states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SECTION 7. Incentives to registered export producers. — Registered export producers. — Registered export producers unless they already enjoy the same privileges under other laws shall be entitled to the incentives set forth in paragraphs (h), (i) and (j) of Section 7 of Republic Act Numbered Fifty-one hundred eighty-six, known as the Investment Incentives Act; and registered export producers that are pioneer enterprises shall be entitled also to the incentives set forth in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 8 of the said Act. In addition to the said incentives, and in lieu of other incentives provided in Section 7 and in Section 9 of that Act, registered export producer shall be entitled to benefits and incentives as enumerated hereunder.

    x       x       x


    (Emphasis supplied)

    We find no ambiguity in the law. When construed together, the above-quoted provisions yield no other conclusion but that gross receipts of a pioneer enterprise registered with the Board of Investments, such as Telefunken, are exempt from the contractor’s tax. This is in accordance with the policy of the government, as declared in Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6135:chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

    ". . . to actively encourage, promote, and diversify exports of services and of manufacturers utilizing domestic raw materials to the fullest extent possible, and to develop new markets for Philippine products, in order to attain a rising level of production and employment, increase foreign exchange earnings, hasten the economic , development of the nation, and ensure that the benefits of development accrue to the Filipino people."cralaw virtua1aw library

    There is no difference between the gross receipts of pioneer enterprises registered with the Board of Investments under Republic Act No. 6135 and the gross receipts of registered pioneer enterprises under Republic Act No. 5186. In fact, petitioner himself had ruled in this vein on February 4, 1974 in the case of Asian Transmission Corporation. 2

    Petitioner, in that case, said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "This refers to your letters dated November 29 and December 19, 1973 requesting a ruling as to whether your contractors namely, C. E. Construction Corporation and Marsteel Corporation are exempt from the payment of the 3% contractor’s tax prescribed under Section 191(16) of the Tax Code. It appears that your application for registration as export producer under Republic Act No. 6135 has been approved by the Board of Investments on January 8, 1974 on a pioneer status.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    In reply, I have the honor to inform you that under the last paragraph of Section 191(16) of the Tax Code, gross receipts . . . from a pioneer industry registered with the Board of Investments under the provisions of Republic Act Numbered Five Thousand one Hundred and eighty-six, are exempt from the contractor’s tax. It is clear that the intention of the law is to relieve the pioneer industry from ultimately shouldering the contractor’s tax which could be passed on to it legally by its contractor.

    Pursuant to Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6135, that corporation as a registered export producer on a pioneer status is entitled to the same tax incentives granted to a pioneer industry set forth in Section 8(a) of Republic Act No. 5186. Under this latter provision, a pioneer industry is exempt from all taxes under the National Internal Revenue Code, except income tax. In other words, both a registered export producer on a pioneer status under Republic Act No. 6135 and a pioneer industry under Republic Act No. 5186 are entitled to the same tax exemption benefits under the Tax Code. Such being the case, like the latter, the former should not also shoulder the contractor’s tax which could be passed on it legally by its contractor.

    In view thereof, the gross receipts derived by C. E. Construction Corporation and Marsteel Corporation from the construction of your transmission plant in Canlubang, Laguna, are exempt from the 3% contractor’s tax." (Emphasis supplied)chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

    Petitioner now maintains that this 1974 ruling has been abrogated with the passage of the 1977 Tax Code, Section 205(16) which expressly mentions only pioneer enterprises registered with the Board of Investments under Republic Act No. 5186 as exempt from the contractor’s tax, with no reference being made regarding pioneer enterprises registered under Republic Act No. 6135.

    When petitioner made his 1974 ruling, he based the same on Section 191 (16) of the Tax Code which states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SECTION 191. Contractors, proprietors or operators of dockyards, and others. — A contractor’s tax of three per centum of the gross receipts is hereby imposed on the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    (16) Business agents and other independent contractors except persons, associations and corporations under contract for embroidery and apparel for export, as well as their agents and contractors and except gross receipts of or from a pioneer industry registered with the Board of Investments under the provisions of Republic Act Numbered Five Thousand one hundred and eighty-six." (Emphasis supplied)

    A comparison of the above with the previously quoted Section 205 (16) of the 1977 Tax Code reveals that both provisions specifically mention pioneer industries registered with the Board of Investments under Republic Act No. 5186 as exempt from payment of the contractor’s tax. In fact, the wording of the relevant part of both provisions are the same. Clearly, Telefunken falls under the category of "pioneer industries" contemplated under Section 205 (16) and should be entitled to the exemption provided for.

    Lastly, under Sec. 246 or the National Internal Revenue Code, rulings of the BIR may not be given retroactive effect, if the same is prejudicial to the taxpayer. 3

    WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

    SO ORDERED.

    Melo and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

    Feliciano, J., took no part.

    Vitug, J., concurs in the result.

    Endnotes:



    1. CA-G.R. No. 22910, Luis A. Javellana, J., ponente, Serafin V.C. Guingona and Cancio C. Garcia, JJ., concurring; Rollo, p. 23.

    2. Rollo, p. 28-30.

    3. SEC. 246. Non-retroactivity of rulings. — Any revocation, modification or reversal of any of the rules and regulations promulgated in accordance with the preceding section or any of the rulings or circulars promulgated by the Commissioner shall not be given retroactive application if the revocation, modification, or reversal will be prejudicial to the tax payers except in the following cases: (a) where the taxpayer deliberately misstates or omits material facts from his return or in any document required of him by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; (b) where the facts subsequently gathered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue are materially different from the facts on which the ruling is based; or (c) where the taxpayer acted in bad faith.

    G.R. No. 103915   October 23, 1995 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. TELEFUNKEN SEMICONDUCTOR PHIL., INC., ET AL.


    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