Legal ResearchCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS. ESSO STANDARD EASTERN INC.Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaFIRST DIVISION G.R. No. L-28329 August 17, 1975COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, petitioner, vs.ESSO STANAR EASTERN, INC., !Fo"#$"%&' St()*("*-+(,uu# R$-.).)g Co"/. !P0.%.1, respondent.Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres and Solicitor Antonio M. Martinez for petitioner.Carlos J. Valdez & Associates for respondent. ESGUERRA, J.:ppeal fro! the decision of the "ourt of Ta# ppeals reversin$ the "o!!issioner of "usto!s% decision holdin$ respondent &SSO Standard &astern, Inc., 'for!erl( the Standard)Vacuu! Refinin$ "orporation 'Phil.* and hereinafter referred to as &SSO* liable in the total su! of P++,.-. as special i!port ta# on certain articles i!ported b( the latter under Republic ct No. /0+, other1ise 2no1n as the Petroleu! ct of 3454.Respondent &SSO is the holder of Refinin$ "oncession No. ., issued b( the Secretar( of $ricultureand Natural Resources on Dece!ber 4, 34,+, and operates a petroleu! refinin$ plant in 6i!a( 7ataan. 8nder rticle 39/ of Republic ct No. /0+ 1hich provides: ;Durin$ the five (ears follo1in$ the $rantin$ of an( concession, the concessionaire !a( i!port free of custo!s dut(, all e.* One carton of recorder parts 1ith " = F value of ?..3.,-> assessed special i!portta# in the a!ount of P5/.0. 'irport Protest No. 33*>/* One carton of valves 1ith " = F value of ?/39.,0> assessed special i!port ta# in the a!ount of P-9.+. 'irport Protest No. 3.*>LEANGIE MORA 1Legal ResearchCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS. ESSO STANDARD EASTERN INC.5* One bo# of parts for "onversion boilers and u#iliar( & assessed special i!port ta#in the a!ount of P.-.99 'irport Protest No. 3-*> and-* One carton of recorder parts 1ith " = F value of ?+,9./4> assessed special i!portta# in the a!ount of P35+.99 'irport Protest No. 3+*. 1The "ollector of "usto!s on Februar( 3-, 34-., held that respondent &SSO 1as subAect to the pa(!ent of the special i!port ta# provided in Republic ct No. 3/45, as a!ended b( R.. No. ./,., and dis!issed the protest. 2On March 3, 34-., respondent appealed the rulin$ of the "ollector of "usto!s to the "o!!issioner of "usto!s 1ho, on March 34, 34-,, affir!ed the decision of said "ollector of "usto!s. 3On Bul( ., 34-,, respondent &SSO filed a petition 1ith the "ourt of Ta# ppeals for revie1 of the decision of the "o!!issioner of "usto!s.The "ourt of Ta# ppeals, on Septe!ber /9, 34-+, reversed the decision of herein petitioner "o!!issioner of "usto!s and ordered refund of the a!ount of P++,.-. to respondent &SSO 1hichthe latter had paid under protest. 2This decision of the "ourt of Ta# ppeals is no1 before this "ourt for revie1.Petitioner contends that the special i!port ta# under Republic ct No. 3/45 is separate and distinct fro! the custo!s dut( prescribed b( the Tariff and "usto!s "ode, and that the e#e!ption enAo(ed b( respondent &SSO fro! the pa(!ent of custo!s duties under the Petroleu! net of 3454 does not include e#e!ption fro! the pa(!ent of the special i!port ta# provided in R.. No. 3/45. 5For its stand petitioner puts for1ard this rationale: perusal of the provisions of R.. No. 3/45 1ill sho1 that the le$islature considered the special i!port ta# as a ta# distinct fro! custo!s duties as 1itness the fact that Section .'a* of the said la1 !ade separate !ention of custo!s duties and special i!port ta# 1hen it provided that ... if as a result of the application of the schedule therein, the total revenue derived fro! the custo!s duties and fro! the special i!port ta# on $oods, ... i!ported fro! the 8nited States is less in an( calendar (ear than the proceeds fro! the e#chan$e ta# i!posed under Republic ct Nu!bered Si#Cundred and One, as a!ended, on such $oods, articles or products durin$ the calendar (ear 34,,, the President !a(, b( procla!ation, suspend the reduction of the special i!port ta# for the ne#t succeedin$ calendar (ear ....If it 1ere the intention of "on$ress to e#e!pt the holders of petroleu! refiner( concessions li2e the protestant 'respondent herein*, such e#e!ption should have LEANGIE MORA 2Legal ResearchCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS. ESSO STANDARD EASTERN INC.been clearl( stated in the statute. e!ptions are never presu!ed. The( !ust be e#pressed in the clearest and !ost una!bi$uous lan$ua$e and not left to !ere i!plication. 3Specificall(, petitioner in his brief sub!itted t1o assi$n!ent of errors alle$edl( co!!itted b( the "ourt of Ta# ppeals in the controverted decision, to 1it:1st assin!ent of error"TC& "O8RT OF T@ PP&6S &RR&D IN CO6DIND TCT TC& T&RM ;"8STOMS D8TE; IN RTI"6& 39/ OF R&P876I" "T NO. /0+ IN"68D&S TC& SP&"I6 IMPORT T@ IMPOS&D 7E R&P876I" "T NO. 3/45>#nd assin!ent of error"TC& "O8RT OF T@ PP&6S &RR&D IN CO6DIND TCT &@&MPTION FROM PEM&NT OF "8STOMS D8TI&S 8ND&R R&P876I" "T NO. /0+ IN"68D&S &@&MPTION FROM PEM&NT OF TC& SP&"I6 IMPORT T@.On the other hand, the "ourt of Ta# ppeals rationaliFed the $round for its rulin$ thus:If 1e are to adhere, as 1e should, to the plain and obvious !eanin$ of 1ords in consonance 1ith settled rules of interpretation, it see!s clear that the special i!port ta# is an i!post or a char$e on the i!portation or brin$in$ into the Philippines of all $oods, articles or products subAect thereto, for the phrase ;i!port ta# on all $oods, articles or products i!ported or brou$ht into the Philippines; in e#plicit and una!bi$uous ter!s si!pl( !eans custo!s duties. It is hardl( necessar( to add that ;custo!s duties; are si!pl( ta#es assessed on !erchandise i!ported fro!, or e#ported to a forei$n countr(.nd bein$ a char$e upon i!portation, the special i!port ta# is essentiall( a custo!s dut(, or at least parta2es of the character thereof."itin$ nu!berous !erican decisions and definitions of ter!s ;custo!s duties,; ;duties,; ;i!posts,; ;levies,; ;ta#,; and ;tolls,; and their distinctions, includin$ so!e pronounce!ents of this "ourt on the subAect, the "ourt of Ta# ppeals in its decision, 1ent to $reat len$ths to sho1 that the ter! ;special i!port ta#; as used in R.. No. 3/45 includes custo!s duties. It sees the special i!port ta# as nothin$ but an i!post or a char$e on the i!portation or brin$in$ into the Philippines of $oods, articles or products. 7To clinch its theor( the "ourt of Ta# ppeals cited the si!ilarit( in the basis of co!putation of the custo!s dut( as 1ell as the si!ilarit( in the phraseolo$( of Section / of Republic ct No. 3/45 '1hich established the special i!port ta#* and Section 4)93 of the Tariff = "usto!s code 'the basic la1 providin$ for and re$ulatin$ the i!position of custo!s duties and i!posts on i!portations*. 8LEANGIE MORA 3Legal ResearchCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS. ESSO STANDARD EASTERN INC.For its part, private respondent, &SSO, in its ans1er to the petition, leaned heavil( on the sa!e ar$u!ents as those $iven b( the Ta# "ourt, the burden of 1hich is that the special i!port ta# la1 is acusto!s la1. 9It is clear that the onl( issue involved in this case is 1hether or not the e#e!ption enAo(ed b( herein private respondent &SSO Standard &astern, Inc. fro! custo!s duties $ranted b( Republic ct No. /0+, or the Petroleu! ct of 3454, should e!brace or include the special i!port ta# i!posed b( R..No. 3/45, or the Special I!port Ta# 6a1.Ge have e#a!ined the records of this case thorou$hl( and carefull( considered the ar$u!ents presented b( both parties and Ge are convinced that the onl( thin$ left to this "ourt to do is to deter!ine the intention of the le$islature throu$h interpretation of the t1o statutes involved, i.e., Republic ct No. 3/45 and Republic ct No. /0+.It is a 1ell accepted principle that 1here a statute is a!bi$uous, as Republic ct No. 3/45 appears to be, courts !a( e#a!ine both the printed pa$es of the published ct as 1ell as those e#trinsic !atters that !a( aid in construin$ the !eanin$ of the statute, such as the histor( of its enact!ent, the reasons for the passa$e of the bill and purposes to be acco!plished b( the !easure. 14Petitioner in the first assi$n!ent of error too2 e#ception to the findin$ of the "ourt of Ta# ppeals that ;The lan$ua$e of Republic ct No. 3/45 see!s to leave no roo! for doubt that the la1 intends that the phrase %Special i!port ta#% is ta2en to include custo!s duties; and countered 1ith the ar$u!ent that ;n e#a!ination of the provisions of Republic ct No. 3/45 1ill indubitabl( reveal that "on$ress considered the special i!port ta# as a ta# different fro! custo!s duties, as !a( be seen fro! the fact that Section .'a* of said la1 !ade separate !ention of custo!s duties and special i!port ta# ...; Thus:... if as a result of the application of the schedule therein the total revenue derived fro! the custo!s duties and fro! the special i!port ta# on $oods, ... i!ported fro! the 8nited States is less in an( calendar (ear than the proceeds fro! the e#chan$e ta# i!posed under Republic ct Nu!bered Si# Cundred and One, as a!ended, on such $oods, articles or products durin$ the calendar (ear 34,,, the President !a(, b( procla!ation, suspend the reduction of the special i!port ta# for the ne#t succeedin$ calendar (ear ...Petitioner further ar$ues:"usto!s duties are prescribed b( the Tariff and "usto!s "ode, 1hile the special i!port ta# is provided for b( Republic ct No. 3/45. If our le$islature had intended to classif( the special i!port ta# as custo!s dut(, the said rt 1ould not have e#pressl(e#e!pted fro! pa(!ent of the special I!port ta# i!portations of !achiner(, e+.A. *o. 1101 a!ended further Sections one and t1o of R.. No. -93, as a!ended>+.A. *o. 1120 a!ended further!ore R.. No. -93 as a!ended previousl( b( R.. No. 33+,>+.A. *o. 1301 a!ended Sections one and t1o of R.. No. -93 as a!ended b( R.. Nos. 33+, and 334+.s can be seen fro! the fore$oin$, in one fell s1oop, Republic ct No. 3/45 repealed and revo2ed si# earlier statutes 1hich had so!ethin$ to do 1ith the i!position of special levies andJor e#e!ption of certain i!portations fro! the burden of the special i!port ta#es or levies. On the other hand, it is apparent that R.. No. /0+, the Petroleu! ct, had been spared fro! the prunin$ 2nife of "on$ress, althou$h this latter la1 had $ranted !ore concessions and ta# e#e!ption privile$es than an( of the statutes that 1ere a!ended, repealed or revo2ed b( R.. No. 3/45. The ans1er !ust be that the "on$ress of the Philippine sa1 fit to preserve the privile$es $ranted under the Petroleu! 6a1 of 3454 in order to 2eep the door open to the e#ploitation and develop!ent of the petroleu! resources of the countr( 1ith such incentives as are $iven under that la1.This ascertained 1ill and intention of the le$islature finds a parallelis! in a case brou$ht earlier before this "ourt. fishpond o1ner 1as slapped 1ith ta#es as a ;!erchant; b( the "ollector of Internal Revenue. Ce paid under protest and filed an action to recover the ta#es paid, clai!in$ that he 1as an a$riculturist and not a !erchant. Ghen this "ourt 1as called upon to interpret the provisions of the Internal Revenue 6a1 on 1hether fish is an a$ricultural product 1hich falls under the e#e!ption provisions ofLEANGIE MORA 7Legal ResearchCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS. ESSO STANDARD EASTERN INC.said la1, it in Rollo, p. ,.- 7'id> pp. -)+> Rollo, pp. -)+.+ Decision, pp. 0)33> Rollo, pp. 3-)34.0 7'id., pp. 33)3/.4 ns1er to the Petition for Revie1, pp. /),, Rollo, pp. .4)/3.39 Sutherland, Statutes and Statutor( "onstruction, Vol. II Section .39., p. 4.33 7rief for the Petitioner, pp. 4)33 Rollo, p. ,+.3. 8.S. v. De DuF!an, /9 Phil. 53-.3/ Molina v. Raffert(, /+ Phil. ,5,.35 8.S. v. Palacio, // Phil. .90.LEANGIE MORA 9