Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 14129 July 31, 1962

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs.GUILLERMO MANANTAN, defendant-appellee.

Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellant.Padilla Law Office for defendant-appellee.

REGALA, J.:

This is an appeal of the Solicitor General from the order of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan dismissing the information against the defendant.

The records show that the statement of the case and the facts, as recited in the brief of plaintiff-appellant, is complete and accurate. The same is, consequently, here adopted, to wit:

In an information filed by the Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan in the Court of First Instance of that Province, defendant Guillermo Manantan was charged with a violation Section 54 of the Revised Election Code. A preliminary investigation conducted by said court resulted in the finding a probable cause that the crime charged as committed by defendant. Thereafter, the trial started upon defendant's plea of not guilty, the defense moved to dismiss the information on the ground that as justice of the

peace the defendant is one of the officers enumerated in Section 54 of the Revised Election Code. The lower court denied the motion to dismiss holding that a justice of the peace is within the purview Section 54. A second motion was filed by defense counsel who cited in support thereof the decision of the Court of Appeals in People vs. Macaraeg, (CA-G.R. No. 15613-R, 54 Off. Gaz., pp. 1873-76) where it was held that a justice of the peace is excluded from the prohibition of Section 54 of the Revised Election Code. Acting on this second motion to dismiss, the answer of the prosecution, the reply of the defense, and the opposition of the prosecution, the lower court dismissed the information against the accused upon the authority of the ruling in the case cited by the defense.

Both parties are submitting this case upon the determination of this single question of law: Is a justice the peace included in the prohibition of Section 54 of the Revised Election Code?

Section 54 of the said Code reads:

No justice, judge, fiscal, treasurer, or assessor of any province, no officer or employee of the Army, no member of the national, provincial, city, municipal or rural police force and no classified civil service officer or employee shall aid any candidate, or exert any influence in any manner in a election or take part therein, except to vote, if entitled thereto, or to preserve public peace, if he is a peace officer.

Defendant-appellee argues that a justice of the peace is not comprehended among the officers enumerated in Section 54 of the Revised Election Code. He submits the aforecited section was taken from Section 449 of the Revised Administrative Code, which provided the following:

SEC. 449. Persons prohibited from influencing elections. — No judge of the First Instance, justice of the peace, or treasurer, fiscal or assessor of any province and no officer or employee of the Philippine Constabulary, or any Bureau or employee of the classified civil service, shall aid any candidate or exert influence in any manner in any election or take part therein otherwise than exercising the right to vote.

When, therefore, section 54 of the Revised Election Code omitted the words "justice of the peace," the omission revealed the intention of the Legislature to exclude justices of the peace from its operation.

The above argument overlooks one fundamental fact. It is to be noted that under Section 449 of the Revised Administrative Code, the word "judge" was modified or qualified by the phrase "of First instance", while under Section 54 of the Revised Election Code, no such modification exists. In other words, justices of the peace were expressly included in Section 449 of the Revised Administrative Code because the kinds of judges therein were specified, i.e., judge of the First Instance and justice of the peace. In Section 54, however, there was no necessity therefore to include justices of the peace in the enumeration because the legislature had availed itself of the more generic and broader term, "judge." It was a term not modified by any word or phrase and was intended to comprehend all kinds of judges, like judges of the courts of First Instance, Judges of the courts of Agrarian Relations, judges of the courts of Industrial Relations, and justices of the peace.

It is a well known fact that a justice of the peace is sometimes addressed as "judge" in this jurisdiction. It is because a justice of the peace is indeed a judge. A "judge" is a public officer, who, by virtue of his office, is clothed with judicial authority (U.S. v. Clark, 25 Fed. Cas. 441, 422). According to Bouvier Law Dictionary, "a judge is a public officer lawfully appointed to decide litigated questions according to law. In its most

extensive sense the term includes all officers appointed to decide litigated questions while acting in that capacity, including justices of the peace, and even jurors, it is said, who are judges of facts."

A review of the history of the Revised Election Code will help to justify and clarify the above conclusion.

The first election law in the Philippines was Act 1582 enacted by the Philippine Commission in 1907, and which was later amended by Act. Nos. 1669, 1709, 1726 and 1768. (Of these 4 amendments, however, only Act No. 1709 has a relation to the discussion of the instant case as shall be shown later.) Act No. 1582, with its subsequent 4 amendments were later on incorporated Chapter 18 of the Administrative Code. Under the Philippine Legislature, several amendments were made through the passage of Acts Nos. 2310, 3336 and 3387. (Again, of these last 3 amendments, only Act No. 3587 has pertinent to the case at bar as shall be seen later.) During the time of the Commonwealth, the National Assembly passed Commonwealth Act No. 23 and later on enacted Commonwealth Act No. 357, which was the law enforced until June 1947, when the Revised Election Code was approved. Included as its basic provisions are the provisions of Commonwealth Acts Nos. 233, 357, 605, 666, 657. The present Code was further amended by Republic Acts Nos. 599, 867, 2242 and again, during the session of Congress in 1960, amended by Rep. Acts Nos. 3036 and 3038. In the history of our election law, the following should be noted:

Under Act 1582, Section 29, it was provided:

No public officer shall offer himself as a candidate for elections, nor shall he be eligible during the time that he holds said public office to election at any municipal, provincial or Assembly election, except for reelection to the position which he may be holding, and no judge of the First Instance, justice of the peace,

provincial fiscal, or officer or employee of the Philippine Constabulary or of the Bureau of Education shall aid any candidate or influence in any manner or take part in any municipal, provincial, or Assembly election under the penalty of being deprived of his office and being disqualified to hold any public office whatsoever for a term of 5 year: Provide, however, That the foregoing provisions shall not be construe to deprive any person otherwise qualified of the right to vote it any election." (Enacted January 9, 1907; Took effect on January 15, 1907.)

Then, in Act 1709, Sec. 6, it was likewise provided:

. . . No judge of the First Instance, Justice of the peace provincial fiscal or officer or employee of the Bureau of Constabulary or of the Bureau of Education shall aid any candidate or influence in any manner to take part in any municipal provincial or Assembly election. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be deprived of his office or employment and shall be disqualified to hold any public office or employment whatever for a term of 5 years, Provided, however, that the foregoing provisions shall not be construed to deprive any person otherwise qualified of the right to vote at any election. (Enacted on August 31, 1907; Took effect on September 15, 1907.)

Again, when the existing election laws were incorporated in the Administrative Code on March 10, 1917, the provisions in question read:

SEC. 449. Persons prohibited from influencing elections. — No judge of the First Instance, justice of the peace, or treasurer, fiscal or assessor of any province and no officer or employee of the Philippine Constabulary or any Bureau or employee of the classified civil service, shall aid any candidate or exert influence

in any manner in any election or take part therein otherwise than exercising the right to vote. (Emphasis supplied)

After the Administrative Code, the next pertinent legislation was Act No. 3387. This Act reads:

SEC. 2636. Officers and employees meddling with the election. — Any judge of the First Instance, justice of the peace, treasurer, fiscal or assessor of any province, any officer or employee of the Philippine Constabulary or of the police of any municipality, or any officer or employee of any Bureau of the classified civil service, who aids any candidate or violated in any manner the provisions of this section or takes part in any election otherwise by exercising the right to vote, shall be punished by a fine of not less than P100.00 nor more than P2,000.00, or by imprisonment for not less than 2 months nor more than 2 years, and in all cases by disqualification from public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage for a period of 5 years. (Approved December 3, 1927.) (Emphasis supplied.)

Subsequently, however, Commonwealth Act No. 357 was enacted on August 22, 1938. This law provided in Section 48:

SEC. 48. Active Interventation of Public Officers and Employees. — No justice, judge, fiscal, treasurer or assessor of any province, no officer or employee of the Army, the Constabulary of the national, provincial, municipal or rural police, and no classified civil service officer or employee shall aid any candidate, nor exert influence in any manner in any election nor take part therein, except to vote, if entitled thereto, or to preserve public peace, if he is a peace officer.

This last law was the legislation from which Section 54 of the Revised Election Code was taken.

It will thus be observed from the foregoing narration of the legislative development or history of Section 54 of the Revised Election Code that the first omission of the word "justice of the peace" was effected in Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 357 and not in the present code as averred by defendant-appellee. Note carefully, however, that in the two instances when the words "justice of the peace" were omitted (in Com. Act No. 357 and Rep. Act No. 180), the word "judge" which preceded in the enumeration did not carry the qualification "of the First Instance." In other words, whenever the word "judge" was qualified by the phrase "of the First Instance", the words "justice of the peace" would follow; however, if the law simply said "judge," the words "justice of the peace" were omitted.

The above-mentioned pattern of congressional phraseology would seem to justify the conclusion that when the legislature omitted the words "justice of the peace" in Rep. Act No. 180, it did not intend to exempt the said officer from its operation. Rather, it had considered the said officer as already comprehended in the broader term "judge".

It is unfortunate and regrettable that the last World War had destroyed congressional records which might have offered some explanation of the discussion of Com. Act No. 357 which legislation, as indicated above, has eliminated for the first time the words "justice of the peace." Having been completely destroyed, all efforts to seek deeper and additional clarifications from these records proved futile. Nevertheless, the conclusions drawn from the historical background of Rep. Act No. 180 is sufficiently borne out by reason hid equity.

Defendant further argues that he cannot possibly be among the officers enumerated in Section 54 inasmuch as under that said section, the word

"judge" is modified or qualified by the phrase "of any province." The last mentioned phrase, defendant submits, cannot then refer to a justice of the peace since the latter is not an officer of a province but of a municipality.

Defendant's argument in that respect is too strained. If it is true that the phrase "of any province" necessarily removes justices of the peace from the enumeration for the reason that they are municipal and not provincial officials, then the same thing may be said of the Justices of the Supreme Court and of the Court of Appeals. They are national officials. Yet, can there be any doubt that Justices of the Supreme Court and of the Court of Appeals are not included in the prohibition? The more sensible and logical interpretation of the said phrase is that it qualifies fiscals, treasurers and assessors who are generally known as provincial officers.

The rule of "casus omisus pro omisso habendus est" is likewise invoked by the defendant-appellee. Under the said rule, a person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have been omitted intentionally. If that rule is applicable to the present, then indeed, justices of the peace must be held to have been intentionally and deliberately exempted from the operation of Section 54 of the Revised Election Code.

The rule has no applicability to the case at bar. The maxim "casus omisus" can operate and apply only if and when the omission has been clearly established. In the case under consideration, it has already been shown that the legislature did not exclude or omit justices of the peace from the enumeration of officers precluded from engaging in partisan political activities. Rather, they were merely called by another term. In the new law, or Section 54 of the Revised Election Code, justices of the peace were just called "judges."

In insisting on the application of the rule of "casus omisus" to this case, defendant-appellee cites authorities to the effect that the said rule, being restrictive in nature, has more particular application to statutes that should be strictly construed. It is pointed out that Section 54 must be strictly construed against the government since proceedings under it are criminal in nature and the jurisprudence is settled that penal statutes should be strictly interpreted against the state.

Amplifying on the above argument regarding strict interpretation of penal statutes, defendant asserts that the spirit of fair play and due process demand such strict construction in order to give "fair warning of what the law intends to do, if a certain line is passed, in language that the common world will understand." (Justice Holmes, in McBoyle v. U.S., 283 U.S. 25, L. Ed. 816).

The application of the rule of "casus omisus" does not proceed from the mere fact that a case is criminal in nature, but rather from a reasonable certainty that a particular person, object or thing has been omitted from a legislative enumeration. In the present case, and for reasons already mentioned, there has been no such omission. There has only been a substitution of terms.

The rule that penal statutes are given a strict construction is not the only factor controlling the interpretation of such laws; instead, the rule merely serves as an additional, single factor to be considered as an aid in determining the meaning of penal laws. This has been recognized time and again by decisions of various courts. (3 Sutherland, Statutory Construction, p. 56.) Thus, cases will frequently be found enunciating the principle that the intent of the legislature will govern (U.S. vs. Corbet, 215 U.S. 233). It is to be noted that a strict construction should not be permitted to defeat the policy and purposes of the statute (Ash Sheep Co. v. U.S., 252 U.S. 159). The court may consider the spirit and reason of a statute, as in this particular instance, where a literal meaning would

lead to absurdity, contradiction, injustice, or would defeat the clear purpose of the law makers (Crawford, Interpretation of Laws, Sec. 78, p. 294). A Federal District court in the U.S. has well said:

The strict construction of a criminal statute does not mean such construction of it as to deprive it of the meaning intended. Penal statutes must be construed in the sense which best harmonizes with their intent and purpose. (U.S. v. Betteridge 43 F. Supp. 53, 56, cited in 3 Sutherland Statutory Construction 56.)

As well stated by the Supreme Court of the United States, the language of criminal statutes, frequently, has been narrowed where the letter includes situations inconsistent with the legislative plan (U.S. v. Katz, 271 U.S. 354; See also Ernest Brunchen, Interpretation of the Written Law (1915) 25 Yale L.J. 129.)

Another reason in support of the conclusion reached herein is the fact that the purpose of the statute is to enlarge the officers within its purview. Justices of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and various judges, such as the judges of the Court of Industrial Relations, judges of the Court of Agrarian Relations, etc., who were not included in the prohibition under the old statute, are now within its encompass. If such were the evident purpose, can the legislature intend to eliminate the justice of the peace within its orbit? Certainly not. This point is fully explained in the brief of the Solicitor General, to wit:

On the other hand, when the legislature eliminated the phrases "Judge of First Instance" and justice of the peace", found in Section 449 of the Revised Administrative Code, and used "judge" in lieu thereof, the obvious intention was to include in the scope of the term not just one class of judges but all judges, whether of first Instance justices of the peace or special courts, such as judges of the Court of Industrial Relations. . . . .

The weakest link in our judicial system is the justice of the peace court, and to so construe the law as to allow a judge thereof to engage in partisan political activities would weaken rather than strengthen the judiciary. On the other hand, there are cogent reasons found in the Revised Election Code itself why justices of the peace should be prohibited from electioneering. Along with Justices of the appellate courts and judges of the Court of First Instance, they are given authority and jurisdiction over certain election cases (See Secs. 103, 104, 117-123). Justices of the peace are authorized to hear and decided inclusion and exclusion cases, and if they are permitted to campaign for candidates for an elective office the impartiality of their decisions in election cases would be open to serious doubt. We do not believe that the legislature had, in Section 54 of the Revised Election Code, intended to create such an unfortunate situation. (pp. 708, Appellant's Brief.)

Another factor which fortifies the conclusion reached herein is the fact that the administrative or executive department has regarded justices of the peace within the purview of Section 54 of the Revised Election Code.

In Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr. v. The Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Justice, etc. (G.R. No. L-12601), this Court did not give due course to the petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction against the respondents, for not setting aside, among others, Administrative Order No. 237, dated March 31, 1957, of the President of the Philippines, dismissing the petitioner as justice of the peace of Carmen, Agusan. It is worthy of note that one of the causes of the separation of the petitioner was the fact that he was found guilty in engaging in electioneering, contrary to the provisions of the Election Code.

Defendant-appellee calls the attention of this Court to House Bill No. 2676, which was filed on January 25, 1955. In that proposed legislation,

under Section 56, justices of the peace are already expressly included among the officers enjoined from active political participation. The argument is that with the filing of the said House Bill, Congress impliedly acknowledged that existing laws do not prohibit justices of the peace from partisan political activities.

The argument is unacceptable. To begin with, House Bill No. 2676 was a proposed amendment to Rep. Act No. 180 as a whole and not merely to section 54 of said Rep. Act No. 180. In other words, House Bill No. 2676 was a proposed re-codification of the existing election laws at the time that it was filed. Besides, the proposed amendment, until it has become a law, cannot be considered to contain or manifest any legislative intent. If the motives, opinions, and the reasons expressed by the individual members of the legislature even in debates, cannot be properly taken into consideration in ascertaining the meaning of a statute (Crawford, Statutory Construction, Sec. 213, pp. 375-376), a fortiori what weight can We give to a mere draft of a bill.

On law reason and public policy, defendant-appellee's contention that justices of the peace are not covered by the injunction of Section 54 must be rejected. To accept it is to render ineffective a policy so clearly and emphatically laid down by the legislature.

Our law-making body has consistently prohibited justices of the peace from participating in partisan politics. They were prohibited under the old Election Law since 1907 (Act No. 1582 and Act No. 1709). Likewise, they were so enjoined by the Revised Administrative Code. Another which expressed the prohibition to them was Act No. 3387, and later, Com. Act No. 357.

Lastly, it is observed that both the Court of Appeals and the trial court applied the rule of "expressio unius, est exclusion alterius" in arriving at the conclusion that justices of the peace are not covered by Section 54.

Said the Court of Appeals: "Anyway, guided by the rule of exclusion, otherwise known as expressio unius est exclusion alterius, it would not be beyond reason to infer that there was an intention of omitting the term "justice of the peace from Section 54 of the Revised Election Code. . . ."

The rule has no application. If the legislature had intended to exclude a justice of the peace from the purview of Section 54, neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals has given the reason for the exclusion. Indeed, there appears no reason for the alleged change. Hence, the rule of expressio unius est exclusion alterius has been erroneously applied. (Appellant's Brief, p. 6.)

Where a statute appears on its face to limit the operation of its provisions to particular persons or things by enumerating them, but no reason exists why other persons or things not so enumerated should not have been included, and manifest injustice will follow by not so including them, the maxim expressio unius est exclusion alterius, should not be invoked. (Blevins v. Mullally 135 p. 307, 22 Cal. App. 519.) .

FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, the order of dismissal entered by the trial court should be set aside and this case is remanded for trial on the merits.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera and Makalintal, JJ., concur.Padilla and Dizon, JJ., took no part.Reyes, J.B.L., J., is on leave.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-33140 October 23, 1978

J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., JOSE M. TUASON, NICASIO A. TUASON, TERESA TUASON, CELSO S. TUASON and SEVERO A. TUASON, petitioners, vs.HON. HERMINIO C. MARIANO, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal MANUELA AQUIAL, MARIA AQUIAL, Spouses JOSE M. CORDOVA and SATURNINA C. CORDOVA, respondents.

Sison Law Office and Senensio O. Ortile for petitioners.

Hill & Associates Law Office for respondents Aquials.

Antonio E. Pesigan for respondents Cordovas.

AQUINO, J.:

This is another litigation regarding the validity of the much controverted Original Certificate of Title No. 735 covering the Santa Mesa and D Estates of the Tuason mayorazgo or Entail with areas of 877 (879) and 1,625 hectares, respectively (Barrette vs. Tuason, 50 Phil. 888; Benin case, infra).

On October 1, 1965, Manuela Aquial and Maria Aquial filed a complaint in forma pauperis in the Court of First Instance of Rizal Pasig Branch X, wherein they prayed that they be declared the owners of a parcel of land located at Balara, Marikina, Rizal (now Quezon City) and bounded on the north by Sapang Mapalad, on the south by the land of Eladio, Tiburcio on the east by Sapang Kolotkolotan, and on the west by Sapang Kuliat The land, which has an area of three hundred eighty-three quiñones was allegedly acquired by their father by means of a Spanish title issued to him on May 10, 1877 (Civil Case No. 8943).

They alleged that sometime in 1960, or after J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. had illegally entered upon that land, they discovered that it had been fraudulently or erroneously included in OCT No. 735 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal and that it was registered in the names of defendants Mariano, Teresa, Juan, Demetrio and Augusta all surnamed Tuason pursuant to a decree issued on July 6. 1914 in Case No. 7681 of the Court of Land Registration.

They further alleged that transfer certificates of title, derived from OCT No. 735, were issued to defendants J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., University of the Philippines and National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (Nawasa) which leased a portion of its land to defendant Capitol Golf Club.

Plaintiffs Aquial prayed that OCT No. 735 and the titles derived therefrom be declared void due to certain irregularities in the land registration proceeding. They asked for damages.

Defendant J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, prescription, laches and prior judgment. The plaintiffs opposed that motion. The lower court denied it. The grounds of the motion to dismiss were pleaded as affirmative defenses in the answer of defendants Tuason and J. M.

Tuason & Co., Inc. They insisted that a preliminary hearing be held on those defenses.

On January 25, 1967, the spouses Jose M. Cordova and Saturnina C. Cordova, who had bought eleven hectares of the disputed land from the plaintiffs, were allowed to intervene in the case.

On September 5, 1970, the lower court issued an order requiring the parties the Register of Deeds of Rizal to produce in court on October 16, 1970 OCT No. 735 and certain transfer certificates of title derived from that first or basic title. Later, the court required the production in court of the plan of the land covered by OCT No. 735 allegedly for the purpose of determining whether the lands claimed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors are included therein.

On February 11, 1971, the Tuason and J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. filed the instant civil actions of certiorari and prohibition praying, inter alia, that the trial court be ordered to dismiss the complaint and enjoined from proceeding in the said case. After the petitioners had filed the proper bond, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued. Respondents Aquial and Cordova answered the petition. The parties, except the Aquials, filed memoranda in lieu of oral argument.

The issue is whether OCT No. 735 and the titles derived therefrom can be questioned at this late hour by respondents Aquial and Cordova. The supposed irregularities in the land registration proceeding, which led to the issuance of the decree upon which OCT. No. 735 was based, are the same issues raised in Civil Cases Nos. 3621, 3622 and 3623 of the lower court. The 1965 decision of Judge Eulogio Mencias in those cases, in validating OCT No. 735, is annexed to the complaint of the Aquials. It is cited by them to support their support their action and it might have encouraged them to ventilate their action in court.

On appeal to this Court, that decision was reversed and the validity of OCT No. 735 and the titles derived therefrom was once more upheld. (Benin vs. Tuason, L-26127, Alcantara vs. Tuason, L-26128 and Pili vs. Tuason, L-26129, all decided on June 28, 1974, 57 SCRA 531).

The ruling in the Benin, Alcantara and Pili cases was applied in Mara, Inc. vs. Estrella, L-40511, July 25, 1975, 65 SCRA 471. That ruling is simply a reiteration or confirmation of the holding in the following cases directly or incidentally sustaining OCT No. 735: Bank of the P. I. vs. Acuña, 59 Phil. 183; Tiburcio vs. PHHC, 106 Phil. 447;Galvez and Tiburcio vs. Tuason y de la Paz, 119 Phil. 612; Alcantara vs. Tuason, 92 Phil. 796; Santiago vs. J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. 110 Phil. 16; J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Bolaños, 95 Phil. 106; J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Santiago, 99 Phil. 615; J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. De Guzman, 99 Phil. 281; J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Aguirre, 117 Phil. 110; J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Macalindong, 116 Phil. 1227; J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Magdangal, 114 Phil. 42; Varsity Hills, Inc. vs. Navarro, L-30889, February 29, 1972, 43 SCRA 503, and People's Homesite and Housing Corporation vs. Mencias, L-24114, August 16, 1967, 20 SCRA 1031.

Considering the governing principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere (follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled) it becomes evident that respondents Aquial and Cordova cannot maintain their action in Civil Case No. 8943 without eroding the long settled holding of the courts that OCT No. 735 is valid and no longer open to attack.

It is against public policy that matters already decided on the merits be relitigated again and again, consuming the court's time and energies at the expense of other litigants: Interest rei publicae ut finis sit litium." (Varsity Hills, Inc. vs. Navarro, supra).

Finding the petition for certiorari and prohibition to be meritorious, the trial court is directed to dismiss Civil Case No. 8943 with prejudice and without costs. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo (Actg. Chairman), Antonio, Concepcion Jr., and Santos, JJ., concur.

Fernando, J, took no part.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. Nos. 167274-75 July 21, 2008

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs.FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

TINGA, J.:

Simple and uncomplicated is the central issue involved, yet whopping is the amount at stake in this case.

After much wrangling in the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) and the Court of Appeals, Fortune Tobacco Corporation (Fortune Tobacco) was granted a tax refund or tax credit representing specific taxes erroneously collected from its tobacco products. The tax refund is being re-claimed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) in this petition.

The following undisputed facts, summarized by the Court of Appeals, are quoted in the assailed Decision1 dated 28 September 2004:

CAG.R. SP No. 80675

x x x x

Petitioner2 is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with principal address at Fortune Avenue, Parang, Marikina City.

Petitioner is the manufacturer/producer of, among others, the following cigarette brands, with tax rate classification based on net retail price prescribed by Annex "D" to R.A. No. 4280, to wit:

Brand Tax Rate

Champion M 100 P1.00

Salem M 100 P1.00

Salem M King P1.00

Camel F King P1.00

Camel Lights Box 20’s P1.00

Camel Filters Box 20’s P1.00

Winston F Kings P5.00

Winston Lights P5.00

Immediately prior to January 1, 1997, the above-mentioned cigarette brands were subject to ad valorem tax pursuant to then Section 142 of the Tax Code of 1977, as amended. However, on January 1, 1997, R.A. No. 8240 took effect whereby a shift from the ad valorem tax (AVT) system to the specific tax system was made and subjecting the aforesaid cigarette brands to specific tax under [S]ection 142 thereof, now

renumbered as Sec. 145 of the Tax Code of 1997, pertinent provisions of which are quoted thus:

Section 145. Cigars and Cigarettes-

(A) Cigars. – There shall be levied, assessed and collected on cigars a tax of One peso (P1.00) per cigar.

"(B) Cigarettes packed by hand. – There shall be levied, assessesed and collected on cigarettes packed by hand a tax of Forty centavos (P0.40) per pack.

(C) Cigarettes packed by machine. – There shall be levied, assessed and collected on cigarettes packed by machine a tax at the rates prescribed below:

(1) If the net retail price (excluding the excise tax and the value-added tax) is above Ten pesos ( P 10.00) per pack, the tax shall be Twelve (P12.00) per pack;

(2) If the net retail price (excluding the excise tax and the value added tax) exceeds Six pesos and Fifty centavos ( P 6.50) but does not exceed Ten pesos (P10.00) per pack, the tax shall be Eight Pesos ( P 8.00) per pack.

(3) If the net retail price (excluding the excise tax and the value-added tax) is Five pesos ( P 5.00) but does not exceed Six Pesos and fifty centavos ( P 6.50) per pack , the tax shall be Five pesos ( P 5.00) per pack ;

(4) If the net retail price (excluding the excise tax and the value-added tax) is below Five pesos ( P 5.00) per pack, the tax shall be One peso ( P 1.00) per pack;

"Variants of existing brands of cigarettes which are introduced in the domestic market after the effectivity of R.A. No. 8240 shall be taxed under the highest classification of any variant of that brand.

The excise tax from any brand of cigarettes within the next three (3) years from the effectivity of R.A. No. 8240 shall not be lower than the tax, which is due from each brand on October 1, 1996. Provided, however, that in cases were (sic) the excise tax rate imposed in paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) hereinabove will result in an increase in excise tax of more than seventy percent (70%), for a brand of cigarette, the increase shall take effect in two tranches: fifty percent (50%) of the increase shall be effective in 1997 and one hundred percent (100%) of the increase shall be effective in 1998.

Duly registered or existing brands of cigarettes or new brands thereof packed by machine shall only be packed in twenties.

The rates of excise tax on cigars and cigarettes under paragraphs (1), (2) (3) and (4) hereof, shall be increased by twelve percent (12%) on January 1, 2000. (Emphasis supplied)

New brands shall be classified according to their current net retail price.

For the above purpose, ‘net retail price’ shall mean the price at which the cigarette is sold on retail in twenty (20) major supermarkets in Metro Manila (for brands of cigarettes marketed nationally), excluding the amount intended to cover the applicable excise tax and value-added tax. For brands which are marketed only outside Metro [M]anila, the ‘net retail price’ shall mean the price at which the cigarette is sold in five (5)

major supermarkets in the region excluding the amount intended to cover the applicable excise tax and the value-added tax.

The classification of each brand of cigarettes based on its average retail price as of October 1, 1996, as set forth in Annex "D," shall remain in force until revised by Congress.

Variant of a brand shall refer to a brand on which a modifier is prefixed and/or suffixed to the root name of the brand and/or a different brand which carries the same logo or design of the existing brand.

To implement the provisions for a twelve percent (12%) increase of excise tax on, among others, cigars and cigarettes packed by machines by January 1, 2000, the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue, issued Revenue Regulations No. 17-99, dated December 16, 1999, which provides the increase on the applicable tax rates on cigar and cigarettes as follows:

SECTION ARTICLES PRESENT SPECIFIC TAX RATE PRIOR TO JAN. 1, 2000

NEW SPECIFIC TAX RATE EFFECTIVE JAN. 1, 2000

145 (A) P1.00/cigar P1.12/cigar

(B)Cigarettes packed by machine(1) Net retail price (excluding VAT and excise) exceeds P10.00 per pack

P12.00/pack P13.44/ pack

(2) Exceeds P10.00 per pack

P8.00/pack P8.96/pack

(3) Net retail price (excluding VAT and excise) is P5.00 to P6.50 per pack

P5.00/pack P5.60/pack

(4) Net Retail Price (excluding VAT and excise) is below P5.00 per pack

P1.00/pack P1.12/pack

Revenue Regulations No. 17-99 likewise provides in the last paragraph of Section 1 thereof, "(t)hat the new specific tax rate for any existing brand of cigars, cigarettes packed by machine, distilled spirits, wines and fermented liquor shall not be lower than the excise tax that is actually being paid prior to January 1, 2000."

For the period covering January 1-31, 2000, petitioner allegedly paid specific taxes on all brands manufactured and removed in the total amounts of P585,705,250.00.

On February 7, 2000, petitioner filed with respondent’s Appellate Division a claim for refund or tax credit of its purportedly overpaid excise tax for the month of January 2000 in the amount of P35,651,410.00

On June 21, 2001, petitioner filed with respondent’s Legal Service a letter dated June 20, 2001 reiterating all the claims for refund/tax credit of its overpaid excise taxes filed on various dates, including the present claim for the month of January 2000 in the amount of P35,651,410.00.

As there was no action on the part of the respondent, petitioner filed the instant petition for review with this Court on December 11, 2001, in order to comply with the two-year period for filing a claim for refund.

In his answer filed on January 16, 2002, respondent raised the following Special and Affirmative Defenses;

4. Petitioner’s alleged claim for refund is subject to administrative routinary investigation/examination by the Bureau;

5. The amount of P35,651,410 being claimed by petitioner as alleged overpaid excise tax for the month of January 2000 was not properly documented.

6. In an action for tax refund, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to establish its right to refund, and failure to sustain the burden is fatal to its claim for refund/credit.

7. Petitioner must show that it has complied with the provisions of Section 204(C) in relation [to] Section 229 of the Tax Code on the prescriptive period for claiming tax refund/credit;

8. Claims for refund are construed strictly against the claimant for the same partake of tax exemption from taxation; and

9. The last paragraph of Section 1 of Revenue Regulation[s] [No.]17-99 is a valid implementing regulation which has the force and effect of law."

CA G.R. SP No. 83165

The petition contains essentially similar facts, except that the said case questions the CTA’s December 4, 2003 decision in CTA Case No. 6612 granting respondent’s3 claim for refund of the amount of P355,385,920.00 representing erroneously or illegally collected specific taxes covering the period January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002, as well as its March 17, 2004 Resolution denying a reconsideration thereof.

x x x x

In both CTA Case Nos. 6365 & 6383 and CTA No. 6612, the Court of Tax Appeals reduced the issues to be resolved into two as stipulated by the parties, to wit: (1) Whether or not the last paragraph of Section 1 of Revenue Regulation[s] [No.] 17-99 is in accordance with the pertinent provisions of Republic Act [No.] 8240, now incorporated in Section 145 of the Tax Code of 1997; and (2) Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a refund ofP35,651,410.00 as alleged overpaid excise tax for the month of January 2000.

x x x x

Hence, the respondent CTA in its assailed October 21, 2002 [twin] Decisions[s] disposed in CTA Case Nos. 6365 & 6383:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the court finds the instant petition meritorious and in accordance with law. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ORDERED to REFUND to petitioner the amount of P35,651.410.00

representing erroneously paid excise taxes for the period January 1 to January 31, 2000.

SO ORDERED.

Herein petitioner sought reconsideration of the above-quoted decision. In [twin] resolution[s] [both] dated July 15, 2003, the Tax Court, in an apparent change of heart, granted the petitioner’s consolidated motions for reconsideration, thereby denying the respondent’s claim for refund.

However, on consolidated motions for reconsideration filed by the respondent in CTA Case Nos. 6363 and 6383, the July 15, 2002 resolution was set aside, and the Tax Court ruled, this time with a semblance of finality, that the respondent is entitled to the refund claimed. Hence, in a resolution dated November 4, 2003, the tax court reinstated its December 21, 2002 Decision and disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, our Decisions in CTA Case Nos. 6365 and 6383 are hereby REINSTATED. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ORDERED to REFUND petitioner the total amount of P680,387,025.00 representing erroneously paid excise taxes for the period January 1, 2000 to January 31, 2000 and February 1, 2000 to December 31, 2001.

SO ORDERED.

Meanwhile, on December 4, 2003, the Court of Tax Appeals rendered decision in CTA Case No. 6612 granting the prayer for the refund of the amount of P355,385,920.00 representing overpaid excise tax for the period covering January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002. The tax court disposed of the case as follows:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Petition for Review is GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ORDERED to REFUND to petitioner the

amount of P355,385,920.00 representing overpaid excise tax for the period covering January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002.

SO ORDERED.

Petitioner sought reconsideration of the decision, but the same was denied in a Resolution dated March 17, 2004.4 (Emphasis supplied) (Citations omitted)

The Commissioner appealed the aforesaid decisions of the CTA. The petition questioning the grant of refund in the amount of P680,387,025.00 was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 80675, whereas that assailing the grant of refund in the amount of P355,385,920.00 was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 83165. The petitions were consolidated and eventually denied by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court also denied reconsideration in its Resolution5 dated 1 March 2005.

In its Memorandum6 22 dated November 2006, filed on behalf of the Commissioner, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeks to convince the Court that the literal interpretation given by the CTA and the Court of Appeals of Section 145 of the Tax Code of 1997 (Tax Code) would lead to a lower tax imposable on 1 January 2000 than that imposable during the transition period. Instead of an increase of 12% in the tax rate effective on 1 January 2000 as allegedly mandated by the Tax Code, the appellate court’s ruling would result in a significant decrease in the tax rate by as much as 66%.

The OSG argues that Section 145 of the Tax Code admits of several interpretations, such as:

1. That by January 1, 2000, the excise tax on cigarettes should be the higher tax imposed under the specific tax system and the tax

imposed under the ad valorem tax system plus the 12% increase imposed by par. 5, Sec. 145 of the Tax Code;

2. The increase of 12% starting on January 1, 2000 does not apply to the brands of cigarettes listed under Annex "D" referred to in par. 8, Sec. 145 of the Tax Code;

3. The 12% increment shall be computed based on the net retail price as indicated in par. C, sub-par. (1)-(4), Sec. 145 of the Tax Code even if the resulting figure will be lower than the amount already being paid at the end of the transition period. This is the interpretation followed by both the CTA and the Court of Appeals.7

This being so, the interpretation which will give life to the legislative intent to raise revenue should govern, the OSG stresses.

Finally, the OSG asserts that a tax refund is in the nature of a tax exemption and must, therefore, be construed strictly against the taxpayer, such as Fortune Tobacco.

In its Memorandum8 dated 10 November 2006, Fortune Tobacco argues that the CTA and the Court of Appeals merely followed the letter of the law when they ruled that the basis for the 12% increase in the tax rate should be the net retail price of the cigarettes in the market as outlined in paragraph C, sub paragraphs (1)-(4), Section 145 of the Tax Code. The Commissioner allegedly has gone beyond his delegated rule-making power when he promulgated, enforced and implemented Revenue Regulation No. 17-99, which effectively created a separate classification for cigarettes based on the excise tax "actually being paid prior to January 1, 2000."9

It should be mentioned at the outset that there is no dispute between the fact of payment of the taxes sought to be refunded and the receipt thereof by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). There is also no question about the mathematical accuracy of Fortune Tobacco’s claim since the documentary evidence in support of the refund has not been controverted by the revenue agency. Likewise, the claims have been made and the actions have been filed within the two (2)-year prescriptive period provided under Section 229 of the Tax Code.

The power to tax is inherent in the State, such power being inherently legislative, based on the principle that taxes are a grant of the people who are taxed, and the grant must be made by the immediate representatives of the people; and where the people have laid the power, there it must remain and be exercised.10

This entire controversy revolves around the interplay between Section 145 of the Tax Code and Revenue Regulation 17-99. The main issue is an inquiry into whether the revenue regulation has exceeded the allowable limits of legislative delegation.

For ease of reference, Section 145 of the Tax Code is again reproduced in full as follows:

Section 145. Cigars and Cigarettes-

(A) Cigars.—There shall be levied, assessed and collected on cigars a tax of One peso (P1.00) per cigar.

(B). Cigarettes packed by hand.—There shall be levied, assessed and collected on cigarettes packed by hand a tax of Forty centavos (P0.40) per pack.

(C) Cigarettes packed by machine.—There shall be levied, assessed and collected on cigarettes packed by machine a tax at the rates prescribed below:

(1) If the net retail price (excluding the excise tax and the value-added tax) is above Ten pesos (P10.00) per pack, the tax shall be Twelve pesos (P12.00) per pack;

(2) If the net retail price (excluding the excise tax and the value added tax) exceeds Six pesos and Fifty centavos ( P 6.50) but does not exceed Ten pesos (P10.00) per pack, the tax shall be Eight Pesos (P8.00) per pack.

(3) If the net retail price (excluding the excise tax and the value-added tax) is Five pesos (P5.00) but does not exceed Six Pesos and fifty centavos (P6.50) per pack, the tax shall be Five pesos (P5.00) per pack;

(4) If the net retail price (excluding the excise tax and the value-added tax) is below Five pesos (P5.00) per pack, the tax shall be One peso (P1.00) per pack;

Variants of existing brands of cigarettes which are introduced in the domestic market after the effectivity of R.A. No. 8240 shall be taxed under the highest classification of any variant of that brand.

The excise tax from any brand of cigarettes within the next three (3) years from the effectivity of R.A. No. 8240 shall not be lower than the tax, which is due from each brand on October 1, 1996. Provided, however, That in cases where the excise tax rates imposed in paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) hereinabove will result in an increase in excise tax of more than seventy percent (70%), for a brand of cigarette, the increase

shall take effect in two tranches: fifty percent (50%) of the increase shall be effective in 1997 and one hundred percent (100%) of the increase shall be effective in 1998.

Duly registered or existing brands of cigarettes or new brands thereof packed by machine shall only be packed in twenties.

The rates of excise tax on cigars and cigarettes under paragraphs (1), (2) (3) and (4) hereof, shall be increased by twelve percent (12%) on January 1, 2000.

New brands shall be classified according to their current net retail price.

For the above purpose, ‘net retail price’ shall mean the price at which the cigarette is sold on retail in twenty (20) major supermarkets in Metro Manila (for brands of cigarettes marketed nationally), excluding the amount intended to cover the applicable excise tax and value-added tax. For brands which are marketed only outside Metro Manila, the ‘net retail price’ shall mean the price at which the cigarette is sold in five (5) major intended to cover the applicable excise tax and the value-added tax.

The classification of each brand of cigarettes based on its average retail price as of October 1, 1996, as set forth in Annex "D," shall remain in force until revised by Congress.

Variant of a brand’ shall refer to a brand on which a modifier is prefixed and/or suffixed to the root name of the brand and/or a different brand which carries the same logo or design of the existing brand.11 (Emphasis supplied)

Revenue Regulation 17-99, which was issued pursuant to the unquestioned authority of the Secretary of Finance to promulgate rules

and regulations for the effective implementation of the Tax Code,12 interprets the above-quoted provision and reflects the 12% increase in excise taxes in the following manner:

This table reflects Section 145 of the Tax Code insofar as it mandates a 12% increase effective on 1 January 2000 based on the taxes indicated under paragraph C, sub-paragraph (1)-(4). However, Revenue Regulation No. 17-99 went further and added that "[T]he new specific tax rate for any existing brand of cigars, cigarettes packed by machine, distilled

spirits, wines and fermented liquor shall not be lower than the excise tax that is actually being paid prior to January 1, 2000."13

Parenthetically, Section 145 states that during the transition period, i.e., within the next three (3) years from the effectivity of the Tax Code, the excise tax from any brand of cigarettes shall not be lower than the tax due from each brand on 1 October 1996. This qualification, however, is conspicuously absent as regards the 12% increase which is to be applied on cigars and cigarettes packed by machine, among others, effective on 1 January 2000. Clearly and unmistakably, Section 145 mandates a new rate of excise tax for cigarettes packed by machine due to the 12% increase effective on 1 January 2000 without regard to whether the revenue collection starting from this period may turn out to be lower than that collected prior to this date.

By adding the qualification that the tax due after the 12% increase becomes effective shall not be lower than the tax actually paid prior to 1 January 2000, Revenue Regulation No. 17-99 effectively imposes a tax which is the higher amount between the ad valorem tax being paid at the end of the three (3)-year transition period and the specific tax under paragraph C, sub-paragraph (1)-(4), as increased by 12%—a situation not supported by the plain wording of Section 145 of the Tax Code.

This is not the first time that national revenue officials had ventured in the area of unauthorized administrative legislation.

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Reyes,14 respondent was not informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment of estate taxes was made pursuant to Section 228 of the 1997 Tax Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8424. She was merely notified of the findings by the Commissioner, who had simply relied upon the old provisions of the law and Revenue Regulation No. 12-85 which was based on the old provision of the law. The Court held that in case of

SECTION

DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES PRESENT SPECIFIC TAX RATES PRIOR TO JAN. 1, 2000

NEW SPECIFIC TAX RATE Effective Jan.. 1, 2000

145 (A) P1.00/cigar P1.12/cigar

(B)Cigarettes packed by Machine

(1) Net Retail Price (excluding VAT and Excise) exceeds P10.00 per pack

P12.00/pack P13.44/pack

(2) Net Retail Price (excluding VAT and Excise) is P6.51 up to P10.00 per pack

P8.00/pack P8.96/pack

(3) Net Retail Price (excluding VAT and excise) is P5.00 to P6.50 per pack

P5.00/pack P5.60/pack

(4) Net Retail Price (excluding VAT and excise) is below P5.00 per pack)

P1.00/pack P1.12/pack

discrepancy between the law as amended and the implementing regulation based on the old law, the former necessarily prevails. The law must still be followed, even though the existing tax regulation at that time provided for a different procedure.15

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Central Luzon Drug Corporation,16 the tax authorities gave the term "tax credit" in Sections 2(i) and 4 of Revenue Regulation 2-94 a meaning utterly disparate from what R.A. No. 7432 provides. Their interpretation muddled up the intent of Congress to grant a mere discount privilege and not a sales discount. The Court, striking down the revenue regulation, held that an administrative agency issuing regulations may not enlarge, alter or restrict the provisions of the law it administers, and it cannot engraft additional requirements not contemplated by the legislature. The Court emphasized that tax administrators are not allowed to expand or contract the legislative mandate and that the "plain meaning rule" or verba legis in statutory construction should be applied such that where the words of a statute are clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.

As we have previously declared, rule-making power must be confined to details for regulating the mode or proceedings in order to carry into effect the law as it has been enacted, and it cannot be extended to amend or expand the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute. Administrative regulations must always be in harmony with the provisions of the law because any resulting discrepancy between the two will always be resolved in favor of the basic law.17

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Michel J. Lhuillier Pawnshop, Inc.,18 Commissioner Jose Ong issued Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 15-91, as well as the clarificatory Revenue Memorandum

Circular (RMC) 43-91, imposing a 5% lending investor’s tax under the 1977 Tax Code, as amended by Executive Order (E.O.) No. 273, on pawnshops. The Commissioner anchored the imposition on the definition of lending investors provided in the 1977 Tax Code which, according to him, was broad enough to include pawnshop operators. However, the Court noted that pawnshops and lending investors were subjected to different tax treatments under the Tax Code prior to its amendment by the executive order; that Congress never intended to treat pawnshops in the same way as lending investors; and that the particularly involved section of the Tax Code explicitly subjected lending investors and dealers in securities only to percentage tax. And so the Court affirmed the invalidity of the challenged circulars, stressing that "administrative issuances must not override, supplant or modify the law, but must remain consistent with the law they intend to carry out."19

In Philippine Bank of Communications v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,20 the then acting Commissioner issued RMC 7-85, changing the prescriptive period of two years to ten years for claims of excess quarterly income tax payments, thereby creating a clear inconsistency with the provision of Section 230 of the 1977 Tax Code. The Court nullified the circular, ruling that the BIR did not simply interpret the law; rather it legislated guidelines contrary to the statute passed by Congress. The Court held:

It bears repeating that Revenue memorandum-circulars are considered administrative rulings (in the sense of more specific and less general interpretations of tax laws) which are issued from time to time by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. It is widely accepted that the interpretation placed upon a statute by the executive officers, whose duty is to enforce it, is entitled to great respect by the courts. Nevertheless, such interpretation is not conclusive and will be ignored if judicially found to be erroneous. Thus, courts will not countenance

administrative issuances that override, instead of remaining consistent and in harmony with, the law they seek to apply and implement.21

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. CA, et al.,22 the central issue was the validity of RMO 4-87 which had construed the amnesty coverage under E.O. No. 41 (1986) to include only assessments issued by the BIR after the promulgation of the executive order on 22 August 1986 and not assessments made to that date. Resolving the issue in the negative, the Court held:

x x x all such issuances must not override, but must remain consistent and in harmony with, the law they seek to apply and implement. Administrative rules and regulations are intended to carry out, neither to supplant nor to modify, the law.23

x x x

If, as the Commissioner argues, Executive Order No. 41 had not been intended to include 1981-1985 tax liabilities already assessed (administratively) prior to 22 August 1986, the law could have simply so provided in its exclusionary clauses. It did not. The conclusion is unavoidable, and it is that the executive order has been designed to be in the nature of a general grant of tax amnesty subject only to the cases specifically excepted by it.24

In the case at bar, the OSG’s argument that by 1 January 2000, the excise tax on cigarettes should be the higher tax imposed under the specific tax system and the tax imposed under the ad valorem tax system plus the 12% increase imposed by paragraph 5, Section 145 of the Tax Code, is an unsuccessful attempt to justify what is clearly an impermissible incursion into the limits of administrative legislation. Such an interpretation is not supported by the clear language of the law and is obviously only meant

to validate the OSG’s thesis that Section 145 of the Tax Code is ambiguous and admits of several interpretations.

The contention that the increase of 12% starting on 1 January 2000 does not apply to the brands of cigarettes listed under Annex "D" is likewise unmeritorious, absurd even. Paragraph 8, Section 145 of the Tax Code simply states that, "[T]he classification of each brand of cigarettes based on its average net retail price as of October 1, 1996, as set forth in Annex ‘D’, shall remain in force until revised by Congress." This declaration certainly does not lend itself to the interpretation given to it by the OSG. As plainly worded, the average net retail prices of the listed brands under Annex "D," which classify cigarettes according to their net retail price into low, medium or high, obviously remain the bases for the application of the increase in excise tax rates effective on 1 January 2000.

The foregoing leads us to conclude that Revenue Regulation No. 17-99 is indeed indefensibly flawed. The Commissioner cannot seek refuge in his claim that the purpose behind the passage of the Tax Code is to generate additional revenues for the government. Revenue generation has undoubtedly been a major consideration in the passage of the Tax Code. However, as borne by the legislative record,25 the shift from the ad valorem system to the specific tax system is likewise meant to promote fair competition among the players in the industries concerned, to ensure an equitable distribution of the tax burden and to simplify tax administration by classifying cigarettes, among others, into high, medium and low-priced based on their net retail price and accordingly graduating tax rates.

At any rate, this advertence to the legislative record is merely gratuitous because, as we have held, the meaning of the law is clear on its face and free from the ambiguities that the Commissioner imputes. We simply

cannot disregard the letter of the law on the pretext of pursuing its spirit.26

Finally, the Commissioner’s contention that a tax refund partakes the nature of a tax exemption does not apply to the tax refund to which Fortune Tobacco is entitled. There is parity between tax refund and tax exemption only when the former is based either on a tax exemption statute or a tax refund statute. Obviously, that is not the situation here. Quite the contrary, Fortune Tobaccos claim for refund is premised on its erroneous payment of the tax, or better still the government’s exaction in the absence of a law.

Tax exemption is a result of legislative grace. And he who claims an exemption from the burden of taxation must justify his claim by showing that the legislature intended to exempt him by words too plain to be mistaken.27 The rule is that tax exemptions must be strictly construed such that the exemption will not be held to be conferred unless the terms under which it is granted clearly and distinctly show that such was the intention.28

A claim for tax refund may be based on statutes granting tax exemption or tax refund. In such case, the rule of strict interpretation against the taxpayer is applicable as the claim for refund partakes of the nature of an exemption, a legislative grace, which cannot be allowed unless granted in the most explicit and categorical language. The taxpayer must show that the legislature intended to exempt him from the tax by words too plain to be mistaken.29

Tax refunds (or tax credits), on the other hand, are not founded principally on legislative grace but on the legal principle which underlies all quasi-contracts abhorring a person’s unjust enrichment at the expense of another.30The dynamic of erroneous payment of tax fits to a

tee the prototypic quasi-contract, solutio indebiti, which covers not only mistake in fact but also mistake in law.31

The Government is not exempt from the application of solutio indebiti.32 Indeed, the taxpayer expects fair dealing from the Government, and the latter has the duty to refund without any unreasonable delay what it has erroneously collected.33 If the State expects its taxpayers to observe fairness and honesty in paying their taxes, it must hold itself against the same standard in refunding excess (or erroneous) payments of such taxes. It should not unjustly enrich itself at the expense of taxpayers.34 And so, given its essence, a claim for tax refund necessitates only preponderance of evidence for its approbation like in any other ordinary civil case.

Under the Tax Code itself, apparently in recognition of the pervasive quasi-contract principle, a claim for tax refund may be based on the following: (a) erroneously or illegally assessed or collected internal revenue taxes; (b) penalties imposed without authority; and (c) any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected.35

What is controlling in this case is the well-settled doctrine of strict interpretation in the imposition of taxes, not the similar doctrine as applied to tax exemptions. The rule in the interpretation of tax laws is that a statute will not be construed as imposing a tax unless it does so clearly, expressly, and unambiguously. A tax cannot be imposed without clear and express words for that purpose. Accordingly, the general rule of requiring adherence to the letter in construing statutes applies with peculiar strictness to tax laws and the provisions of a taxing act are not to be extended by implication. In answering the question of who is subject to tax statutes, it is basic that in case of doubt, such statutes are to be construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the subjects or citizens because burdens are not to be imposed nor presumed to be imposed beyond what statutes expressly and clearly

import.36 As burdens, taxes should not be unduly exacted nor assumed beyond the plain meaning of the tax laws.37

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 80675, dated 28 September 2004, and its Resolution, dated 1 March 2005, are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 72005 May 29, 1987

PHILIPPINE BRITISH ASSURANCE CO., INC., petitioner, vs.HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT; SYCWIN COATING & WIRES, INC., and DOMINADOR CACPAL, CHIEF DEPUTY SHERRIF OF MANILA, respondents.

GANCAYCO, J.:

This is a Petition for Review on certiorari of the Resolution dated September 12, 1985 of the Intermediate Appellate Court in AC-G.R. No. CR-05409 1 granting private respondent's motion for execution pending appeal and ordering the issuance of the corresponding writ of execution on the counterbond to lift attachment filed by petitioner. The focal issue that emerges is whether an order of execution pending appeal of a judgment maybe enforced on the said bond. In the Resolution of September 25, 1985 2 this Court as prayed for, without necessarily giving due course to the petition, issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the respondents from enforcing the order complaint of.

The records disclose that private respondent Sycwin Coating & Wires, Inc., filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money against Varian Industrial Corporation before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. During the pendency of the suit, private respondent succeeded in attaching some of the properties of Varian Industrial Corporation upon the posting of a

supersedeas bond. 3 The latter in turn posted a counterbond in the sum of P1,400, 000.00 4 thru petitioner Philippine British Assurance Co., Inc., so the attached properties were released.

On December 28, 1984, the trial court rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED, and judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Varian Industrial Corporation, and the latter is hereby ordered:

1. To pay plaintiff the amount of P1,401,468.00, the principal obligation with 12% interest per annum from the date of default until fully paid;

2. To pay plaintiff 5% of the principal obligation as liquidated damages;

3. To pay plaintiff P30,000.00 as exemplary damages;

4. To pay plaintiff 15% of P1,401,468.00, the principal obligation, as and for attorney's fees; and

5. To pay the costs of suit.

Accordingly, the counterclaim of the defendant is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. 5

Varian Industrial Corporation appealed the decision to the respondent Court. Sycwin then filed a petition for execution pending appeal against the

properties of Varian in respondent Court. Varian was required to file its comment but none was filed. In the Resolution of July 5, 1985, respondent Court ordered the execution pending appeal as prayed for. 6 However, the writ of execution was returned unsatisfied as Varian failed to deliver the previously attached personal properties upon demand. In a Petition dated August 13, 1985 filed with respondent Court Sycwin prayed that the surety (herein petitioner) be ordered to pay the value of its bond. 7 In compliance with the Resolution of August 23, 1985 of the respondent Court herein petitioner filed its comment. 8 In the Resolution of September 12, 1985, 9 the respondent Court granted the petition. Hence this action.

It is the submission of private respondent Sycwin that without a previous motion for reconsideration of the questioned resolution, certiorari would not lie. While as a general rule a motion for reconsideration has been considered a condition sine qua non for the granting of a writ of certiorari, this rule does not apply when special circumstances warrant immediate or more direct action. 10 It has been held further that a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with in cases like this where execution had been ordered and the need for relief was extremely urgent. 11

The counterbond provides:

WHEREAS, in the above-entitled case pending in the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch LXXXV, Quezon City, an order of Attachment was issued against abovenamed Defendant;

WHEREAS, the Defendant, for the purpose of lifting and/or dissolving the order of attachment issued against them in the above-en-titled case, have offered to file a counterbond in the sum of PESOS ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND ONLY (P1,400,000.00), Philippine Currency, as provided for in Section 5, Rule 57 of the Revised Rules of Court.

NOW, THEREFORE, we, VARIAN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, as Principal and the PHILIPPINE BRITISH ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines, as Surety, in consideration of the above and of the lifting or dissolution of the order of attachment, hereby jointly and severally, bind ourselves in favor of the above Plaintiff in the sum of PESOS ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND ONLY (P1,400,000.00), Philippine Currency, under the condition that in case the Plaintiff recovers judgment in the action, and Defendant will, on demand, re-deliver the attached property so released to the Officer of the Court and the same shall be applied to the payment of the judgment, or in default thereof, the defendant and Surety will, on demand, pay to the Plaintiff the full value of the property released.

EXECUTED at Manila, Philippines, this 28th day of June, 1984. 12

Sections 5, 12, and 17 of Rule 57 of the Revised Rules of Court also provide:

SEC. 5. Manner of attaching property. — The officer executing the order shall without delay attach, to await judgment and execution in the action, all the properties of the party against whom the order is issued in the province, not exempt from execution, or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant's demand, unless the former makes a deposit with the clerk or judge of the court from which the order issued, or gives a counter-bond executed to the applicant, in an amount sufficient to satisfy such demand besides costs, or in an amount equal to the value of the property which is about to be attached, to secure payment to the applicant of any

judgement ment which he may recover in the action. The officer shall also forthwith serve a copy of the applicant's affidavit and bond, and of the order of attachment, on the adverse party, if he be found within the province.

SEC. 12. Discharge of attachment upon giving counterbond. — At any time after an order of attachment has been granted, the party whose property has been attached, or the person appearing on his behalf, may, upon reasonable notice to the applicant, apply to the judge who granted the order, or to the judge of the court in which the action is pending, for an order discharging the attachment wholly or in part on the security given. The judge shall, after hearing, order the discharge of the attachment if a cash deposit is made, or a counter-bond executed to the attaching creditor is filed, on behalf of the adverse party, with the clerk or judge of the court where the application is made, in an amount equal to the value of the property attached as determined by the judge, to secure the payment of any judgment that the attaching creditor may recover in the action. Upon the filing of such counter-bond, copy thereof shall forthwith be served on the attaching creditor or his lawyer. Upon the discharge of an attachment in accordance with the provisions of this section the property attached, or the proceeds of any sale thereof, shall be delivered to the party making the deposit or giving the counterbond aforesaid standing in place of the property so released. Should such counterbond for any reason be found to be, or become, insufficient, and the party furnishing the same fail to file an additional counterbond, the attaching creditor may apply for a new order of attachment.

SEC. 17. When execution returned unsatisfied, recovery had upon bond. — If the execution be returned unsatisfied

in whole or in part, the surety or sureties on any counter-bond given pursuant to the provisions of this rule to secure the payment of the judgment shall become charged on such counter- bond, and bound to pay to the judgement creditor upon demand, the amount due under the judgment, which amount may be recovered from such surety or sureties after notice and summary hearing in the same action. (Emphasis supplied.)

Under Sections 5 and 12, Rule 57 above reproduced it is provided that the counterbond is intended to secure the payment of "any judgment" that the attaching creditor may recover in the action. Under Section 17 of same rule it provides that when "the execution be returned unsatisfied in whole or in part" it is only then that "payment of thejudgment shall become charged on such counterbond."

The counterbond was issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 5, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court as provided in the second paragraph aforecited which is deemed reproduced as part of the counterbond. In the third paragraph it is also stipulated that the counterbond is to be "applied for the payment of the judgment." Neither the rules nor the provisions of the counterbond limited its application to a final and executory judgment. Indeed, it is specified that it applies to the payment of any judgment that maybe recovered by plaintiff. Thus, the only logical conclusion is that an execution of any judgment including one pending appeal if returned unsatisfied maybe charged against such a counterbond.

It is well recognized rule that where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Ubi lex non distinguish nec nos distinguere debemos. 13 "The rule, founded on logic, is a corollary of the principle that general words and phrases in a statute should ordinarily be accorded their natural and general significance. 14 The rule requires that a general term or phrase should not be reduced into parts and one part distinguished from the other so as to justify its exclusion from the operation of the law. 15 In other

words, there should be no distinction in the application of a statute where none is indicated.16 For courts are not authorized to distinguish where the law makes no distinction. They should instead administer the law not as they think it ought to be but as they find it and without regard to consequences. 17

A corollary of the principle is the rule that where the law does not make any exception, courts may not except something therefrom, unless there is compelling reason apparent in the law to justify it.18 Thus where a statute grants a person against whom possession of "any land" is unlawfully withheld the right to bring an action for unlawful detainer, this Court held that the phrase "any land" includes all kinds of land, whether agricultural, residential, or mineral.19 Since the law in this case does not make any distinction nor intended to make any exception, when it speaks of "any judgment" which maybe charged against the counterbond, it should be interpreted to refer not only to a final and executory judgment in the case but also a judgment pending appeal.

All that is required is that the conditions provided for by law are complied with, as outlined in the case of Towers Assurance Corporation v. Ororama Supermart, 20

Under Section 17, in order that the judgment creditor might recover from the surety on the counterbond, it is necessary (1) that the execution be first issued against the principal debtor and that such execution was returned unsatisfied in whole or in part; (2) that the creditor make a demand upon the surety for the satisfaction of the judgment, and (3) that the surety be given notice and a summary hearing on the same action as to his liability for the judgment under his counterbond.

The rule therefore, is that the counterbond to lift attachment that is issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 5, Rule 57, of the Rules of Court,

shall be charged with the payment of any judgment that is returned unsatisfied. It covers not only a final and executory judgement but also the execution of a judgment pending appeal.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and the restraining order issued on September 25, 1985 is hereby dissolved with costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Yap (Chairman), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., is on leave.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 115245 July 11, 1995

JUANITO C. PILAR, petitioner, vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

QUIASON, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing the Resolution dated April 28, 1994 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in UND No. 94-040.

I

On March 22, 1992, petitioner Juanito C. Pilar filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Isabela.

On March 25, 1992, petitioner withdrew his certificate of candidacy.

In M.R. Nos. 93-2654 and 94-0065 dated November 3, 1993 and February 13, 1994 respectively, the COMELEC imposed upon petitioner

the fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for failure to file his statement of contributions and expenditures.

In M.R. No. 94-0594 dated February 24, 1994, the COMELEC denied the motion for reconsideration of petitioner and deemed final M.R. Nos. 93-2654 and 94-0065 (Rollo, p. 14).

Petitioner went to the COMELEC En Banc (UND No. 94-040), which denied the petition in a Resolution dated April 28, 1994 (Rollo, pp. 10-13).

Hence, this petition for certiorari.

We dismiss the petition.

II

Section 14 of R.A. No. 7166 entitled "An Act Providing for Synchronized National and Local Elections and for Electoral Reforms, Authorizing Appropriations Therefor, and for Other Purposes" provides as follows:

Statement of Contributions and Expenditures: Effect of Failure to File Statement. Every candidate and treasurer of the political party shall, within thirty (30) days after the day of the election, file in duplicate with the offices of the Commission the full, true and itemized statement of all contributions and expenditures in connection with the election.

No person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has filed the statement of contributions and expenditures herein required.

The same prohibition shall apply if the political party which nominated the winning candidate fails to file the statement required herein within the period prescribed by this Act.

Except candidates for elective barangay office, failure to file the statements or reports in connection with electoral contributions and expenditures as required herein shall constitute an administrative offense for which the offenders shall be liable to pay an administrative fine ranging from One Thousand Pesos ( P1,000.00) to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), in the discretion of the Commission.

The fine shall be paid within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice of such failure; otherwise, it shall be enforceable by a writ of execution issued by the Commission against the properties of the offender.

It shall be the duty of every city or municipal election registrar to advise in writing, by personal delivery or registered mail, within five (5) days from the date of election all candidates residing in his jurisdiction to comply with their obligation to file their statements of contributions and expenditures.

For the commission of a second or subsequent offense under this Section, the administrative fine shall be from Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) to Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00), in the discretion of the Commission. In addition, the offender shall be subject to perpetual disqualification to hold public office (Emphasis supplied).

To implement the provisions of law relative to election contributions and expenditures, the COMELEC promulgated on January 13, 1992 Resolution No. 2348 (Re: Rules and Regulations Governing Electoral Contributions and Expenditures in Connection with the National and Local Elections onMay 11, 1992). The pertinent provisions of said Resolution are:

Sec. 13. Statement of contributions and expenditures: Reminders to candidates to file statements. Within five (5) days from the day of the election, the Law Department of the Commission, the regional election director of the National Capital Region, the provincial election supervisors and the election registrars shall advise in writing by personal delivery or registered mail all candidates who filed their certificates of candidacy with them to comply with their obligation to file their statements of contributions and expenditures in connection with the elections. Every election registrar shall also advise all candidates residing in his jurisdiction to comply with said obligation (Emphasis supplied).

Sec. 17. Effect of failure to file statement. (a) No person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has filed the statement of contributions and expenditures herein required.

The same prohibition shall apply if the political party which nominated the winning candidates fails to file the statement required within the period prescribed by law.

(b) Except candidates for elective barangay office, failure to file statements or reports in connection with the electoral contributions and expenditures as

required herein shall constitute an administrative offense for which the offenders shall be liable to pay an administrative fine ranging from One Thousand Pesos (P1,000) to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000), in the discretion of the Commission.

The fine shall be paid within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice of such failure; otherwise, it shall be enforceable by a writ of execution issued by the Commission against the properties of the offender.

For the commission of a second or subsequent offense under this section, the administrative fine shall be from Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000) to Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000), in the discretion of the Commission. In addition, the offender shall be subject to perpetual disqualification to hold public office.

Petitioner argues that he cannot be held liable for failure to file a statement of contributions and expenditures because he was a "non-candidate," having withdrawn his certificates of candidacy three days after its filing. Petitioner posits that "it is . . . clear from the law that candidate must have entered the political contest, and should have either won or lost" (Rollo, p. 39).

Petitioner's argument is without merit.

Section 14 of R.A. No. 7166 states that "every candidate" has the obligation to file his statement of contributions and expenditures.

Well-recognized is the rule that where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish, Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos (Philippine British Assurance Co. Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate

Court, 150 SCRA 520 [1987]; cf Olfato v. Commission on Elections, 103 SCRA 741 [1981]). No distinction is to be made in the application of a law where none is indicated (Lo Cham v. Ocampo, 77 Phil. 636 [1946]).

In the case at bench, as the law makes no distinction or qualification as to whether the candidate pursued his candidacy or withdrew the same, the term "every candidate" must be deemed to refer not only to a candidate who pursued his campaign, but also to one who withdrew his candidacy.

The COMELEC, the body tasked with the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall (The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Art. IX(C), Sec. 2[1]), issued Resolution No. 2348 in implementation or interpretation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 7166 on election contributions and expenditures. Section 13 of Resolution No. 2348 categorically refers to "all candidates who filed their certificates of candidacy."

Furthermore, Section 14 of the law uses the word "shall." As a general rule, the use of the word "shall" in a statute implies that the statute is mandatory, and imposes a duty which may be enforced , particularly if public policy is in favor of this meaning or where public interest is involved. We apply the general rule (Baranda v. Gustilo, 165 SCRA 757 [1988]; Diokno v. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, 91 Phil. 608 [1952]).

The state has an interest in seeing that the electoral process is clean, and ultimately expressive of the true will of the electorate. One way of attaining such objective is to pass legislation regulating contributions and expenditures of candidates, and compelling the publication of the same. Admittedly, contributions and expenditures are made for the purpose of influencing the results of the elections (B.P. Blg. 881, Sec. 94; Resolution

No. 2348, Sec. 1). Thus, laws and regulations prescribe what contributions are prohibited (B.P. Blg. 881, Sec. 95, Resolution No. 2348, Sec. 4), or unlawful (B.P. Blg. 881, Sec. 96), and what expenditures are authorized (B.P. Blg. 881, Sec. 102; R.A. No. 7166, Sec. 13; Resolution No. 2348, Sec. 7) or lawful (Resolution No. 2348, Sec. 8).

Such statutes are not peculiar to the Philippines. In "corrupt and illegal practices acts" of several states in the United States, as well as in federal statutes, expenditures of candidates are regulated by requiring the filing of statements of expenses and by limiting the amount of money that may be spent by a candidate. Some statutes also regulate the solicitation of campaign contributions (26 Am Jur 2d, Elections § 287). These laws are designed to compel publicity with respect to matters contained in the statements and to prevent, by such publicity, the improper use of moneys devoted by candidates to the furtherance of their ambitions (26 Am Jur 2d, Elections § 289). These statutes also enable voters to evaluate the influences exerted on behalf of candidates by the contributors, and to furnish evidence of corrupt practices for annulment of elections (Sparkman v. Saylor [Court of Appeals of Kentucky], 180 Ky. 263, 202 S.W. 649 [1918]).

State courts have also ruled that such provisions are mandatory as to the requirement of filing (State ex rel. Butchofsky v. Crawford [Court of Civil Appeals of Texas], 269 S.W. 2d 536 [1954]; Best v. Sidebottom, 270 Ky. 423,109 S.W. 2d 826 [1937]; Sparkman v. Saylor, supra.)

It is not improbable that a candidate who withdrew his candidacy has accepted contributions and incurred expenditures, even in the short span of his campaign. The evil sought to be prevented by the law is not all too remote.

It is notesworthy that Resolution No. 2348 even contemplates the situation where a candidate may not have received any contribution or

made any expenditure. Such a candidate is not excused from filing a statement, and is in fact required to file a statement to that effect. Under Section 15 of Resolution No. 2348, it is provided that "[i]f a candidate or treasurer of the party has received no contribution, made no expenditure, or has no pending obligation, the statement shall reflect such fact."

Lastly, we note that under the fourth paragraph of Section 73 of the B.P. Blg. 881 or the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines, it is provided that "[t]he filing or withdrawal of certificate of candidacy shall not affect whatever civil, criminal or administrative liabilities which a candidate may have incurred." Petitioner's withdrawal of his candidacy did not extinguish his liability for the administrative fine.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza and Francisco, JJ., concur.

Kapunan, J., is on leave.