Republic

SUPREME
Manila

of

the

Philippines
COURT

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. Nos. L-32370 & 32767 April 20, 1983
SIERRA
MADRE
TRUST,
petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, DIRECTOR OF MINES, JUSAN TRUST MINING COMPANY,
and J & S PARTNERSHIP, respondents.
Lobruga Rondoz & Cardenas Law Offices for petitioner.

The adverse claim alleged that the aforementioned six (6) lode
minerals claims covered by LLA No. V-7872 (Amd) encroached
and overlapped the eleven (11) lode mineral claims of the herein
petitioner Sierra Madre Trust, viz., (1) A-12, (2) H-12, (3) JC-11,
(4) W-11, (5) JN-11, (6)WM-11, (7) F-10, (8) A-9, (9) N-9, (10)
W-8, and (11) JN-8, all situated in Sitio Taduan Barrio of Abaca,
Municipality of Dupax, Province of Nueva Vizcaya, and duly
registered with the office of the Mining Recorder at Bayombong,
Nueva Vizcaya on May 14, 1965.
The adverse claim prayed for an order or decision declaring the
above- mentioned six (6) lode mineral claims of respondent Jusan
Trust Mining Company, null, void, and illegal; and denying lode
lease application LLA No. V-7872 over said claims. Further, the
adverse claimant prayed for such other reliefs and remedies
available in the premises.

Fortunato de Leon for respondents.

This adverse claim was docketed in the Bureau of Mines as Mines

Administrative Case No. V-404, and on appeal to the Department
of Agriculture and Natural Resources as DANR Case No. 3502.

ABAD SANTOS, J.:

Likewise, on the same date July 26, 1966, the same Sierra Madre
Trust filed with the Bureau of Mines an Adverse Claim against
LLA No. V-9028 of the J & S Partnership over six (6) lode mineral
claims viz.: (1) A-19, (2) A-20, (3) A-24, (4) A-25, (5) A-29, and
(6) A-30, all registered on March 30, 1965 and amended August 5,
1965, with the office of the Mining Recorder of Nueva Vizcaya,
and situated in Sitio Gatid, Barrio of Abaca Municipality of Dupax,
Province of Nueva Vizcaya.

This is a petition to review a decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural

Resources dated July 8, 1970, in DANR Cases Numbered 3502 and 3502-A. The
decision affirmed a decision of the Director of Mines dated November 6, 1969.
The appeal was made pursuant to Sec. 61 of the Mining Law (C.A. No. 137, as
amended) which provides: "... Findings of facts in the decision or order of the
Director of Mines when affirmed by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources shall be final and conclusive, and the aggrieved party or parties desiring to
appeal from such decision or order shall file in the Supreme Court a petition for
review wherein only questions of law may be raised."
The factual background is given in the brief of the petitioner-appellant which has not
been contradicted by the respondents-appellees and is as follows:
On July 26, 1962, the Sierra Madre Trust filed with the Bureau of
Mines an Adverse Claim against LLA No. V-7872 (Amd) of the
Jusan Trust Mining Company over six (6) lode mineral claims,
viz.: (1) Finland 2, (2) Finland 3, (3) Finland 5, (4) Finland 6, (5)
Finland 8 and (6) Finland 9, all registered on December 11, 1964
with the office of the Mining Recorder of Nueva Vizcaya, and all
situated in Sitio Maghanay, Barrio Abaca Municipality of Dupax,
Province of Nueva Vizcaya.

The adverse claim alleged that the aforementioned six (6) lode
mineral claim covered by LLA No. V-9028, encroached and
overlapped the thirteen (13) lode mineral claims of herein
petitioner Sierra Madre Trust, viz.: (1) Wm-14, (2) F-14, (3) A-13,
(4) H-12 (5) Jc-12, (6) W-12, (7) Jn-11, (8) Wm-11, (9) F-11, (10)
Wm-11, (11) F-11; (12) H-9 and (13) Jc-9, all situated in Sitio
Taduan, Barrio of Abaca Municipality of Dupax, Province of
Nueva Vizcaya and duly registered with the office of the Mining
Recorder at Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, on May 14,1965.
The adverse claim prayed for an order or decision declaring the
above- mentioned six (6) claims of respondent J & S Partnership,
null void, and illegal; and denying lode lease application LLA No.
V-9028 over the said claims. Further, the adverse claimant prayed
for such other reliefs and remedies available in the premises.

This adverse claim was docketed in the Bureau of Mines as Mines

Administrative Case No. V-404, and on appeal to the Department
of Agriculture and Natural Resources as DANR Case No. 3502A.
These two (2) adverse claims, MAC Nos. V-403 and V-404 were
jointly heard in the Bureau of Mines, and also jointly considered in
the appeal in the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
The dispositive portion of the decision rendered by the Director of Mines reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Office believes and so
holds that the respondents have the preferential right over their
"Finland-2", "Finland- 3", "Finland-5", "Finland-6", "Finland-8",
"Finland-9", "A-19", "A-20", "A-24", "A-25", "A-29" and "A-30"
mining claims. Accordingly, the protests (adverse claims) filed by
protestant Sierra Madre Trust should be, as hereby they are,
DISMISSED.
And that of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources reads:
IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appeal
interposed by the appellant, Sierra Madre Trust is hereby dismissed
and the decision of the Director of Mines dated November 6, 1969,
affirmed. "
The adverse claims of Sierra Madre Trust against Jusan Trust Mining Company and J
and S Partnership were based on the allegation that the lode lease applications (LLA)
of the latter "encroached and overlapped" the former's mineral claims, However,
acting on the adverse claims, the Director of Mines found that, "By sheer force of
evidence, this Office is constrained to believe that there exists no conflict or
overlapping between the protestant's and respondents' mining claims. " And this
finding was affirmed by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources thus:
"Anent the first allegation, this Office finds that the Director of Mines did not err
when he found that the twelve (12) claims of respondents Jusan Trust Mining
Company and J & S Partnership did not encroach and overlap the eighteen (18) lode
mineral claims of the appellant Sierra Madre Trust. For this fact has been
incotrovertibly proven by the records appertaining to the case."
It should be noted that according to the Director of Mines in his decision, "during the
intervening period from the 31st day after the discovery [by the respondents] to the
date of location nobody else located the area covered thereby. ... the protestant
[petitioner herein] did not establish any intervening right as it is our findings that
their mining claims do not overlap respondents' mining claims."

After the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources had affirmed the factual
findings of the Director of Mines to the effect that there was no overlapping of
claims and which findings were final and conclusive, Sierra Madre Trust should have
kept its peace for obviously it suffered no material injury and had no pecuniary
interest to protect. But it was obstinate and raised this legal question before Us:
"May there be a valid location of mining claims after the lapse of thirty (30) days
from date of discovery, in contravention to the mandatory provision of Section 33 of
the New Mining Law (Com. Act No. 137, as amended)?" It also raised ancillary
questions.
We see no reason why We have to answer the questions in this petition considering
that there is no justiciable issue between the parties. The officers of the Executive
Department tasked with administering the Mining Law have found that there is
neither encroachment nor overlapping in respect of the claims involved. Accordingly,
whatever may be the answers to the questions will not materially serve the interests
of the petitioner. In closing it is useful to remind litigation prone individuals that the
interpretation by officers of laws which are entrusted to their administration is
entitled to great respect.' In his decision, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources said: "This Office is in conformity with the findings of the Director of
Mines that the mining claims of the appellees were validly located, surveyed and
registered."
Finally, the petitioner also asks: "May an association and/or partnership registered
with the Mining Recorder of a province, but not registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, be vested with juridical personality to enable it to locate and
then lease mining claims from the government?" Suffice it to state that this question
was not raised before the Director of Mines and the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources. There is also nothing in the record to indicate whether or not the
appellees are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. For these
reasons, even assuming that there is a justiciable issue between the parties, this
question cannot be passed upon.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. Costs
against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 119761. August 29, 1996]
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS, HON. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and FORTUNE TOBACCO
CORPORATION, respondents.

DECISION

Hope Luxury M. 100's

VITUG, J.:

Sec. 142, (c), (2)

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR") disputes the decision, dated 31

March 1995, of respondent Court of Appeals affirming the 10th August 1994
decision and the 11th October 1994 resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals ("CTA")
in C.T.A. Case No. 5015, entitled "Fortune Tobacco Corporation vs. Liwayway
Vinzons-Chato in her capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue."

Hope Luxury M. King

The facts, by and large, are not in dispute.

Sec. 142, (c), (2)

Fortune Tobacco Corporation ("Fortune Tobacco") is engaged in the manufacture of

different brands of cigarettes.

More Premium International

On various dates, the Philippine Patent Office issued to the corporation separate
certificates of trademark registration over "Champion," "Hope," and "More"
cigarettes. In a letter, dated 06 January 1987, of then Commissioner of Internal
Revenue Bienvenido A. Tan, Jr., to Deputy Minister Ramon Diaz of the Presidential
Commission on Good Government, "the initial position of the Commission was to
classify 'Champion,' 'Hope,' and 'More' as foreign brands since they were listed in the
World Tobacco Directory as belonging to foreign companies. However, Fortune
Tobacco changed the names of 'Hope' to Hope Luxury' and 'More' to 'Premium
More,' thereby removing the said brands from the foreign brand category. Proof was
also submitted to the Bureau (of Internal Revenue ['BIR']) that 'Champion' was an
original Fortune Tobacco Corporation register and therefore a local brand." Ad
Valorem taxes were imposed on these brands, at the following rates:
"BRAND AD VALOREM TAX RATE
E.O. 22
06-23-86

Sec. 142, (c), (2)

40%

45%

40%

45%

40%

45%

40%

45%

40%

45%

40%

45%

More Premium M. 100's

Sec. 142, (c), (2)

Champion Int'l. M. 100's
Sec. 142, (c), (2)
Champion M. 100's
Sec. 142, (c), (2)
Champion M. King
Sec. 142, (c), last par.

15% 20%

Champion Lights
Sec. 142, (c), last par.

15% 20%"

07-25-87

A bill, which later became Republic Act ("RA") No. 7654, was enacted, on 10 June
1993, by the legislature and signed into law, on 14 June 1993, by the President of the
Philippines. The new law became effective on 03 July 1993. It amended Section
142(c)(1) of the National Internal Revenue Code ("NIRC") to read; as follows:

01-01-88 RA 6956

"SEC. 142. Cigars and Cigarettes. -

06-18-90

"x x x

07-01-86 and E.O. 273

07-05-90

xxx

x x x.

"(c) Cigarettes packed by machine. - There shall be levied, assessed and collected
on cigarettes packed by machine a tax at the rates prescribed below based on the
constructive manufacturer's wholesale price or the actual manufacturer's wholesale
price, whichever is higher:
"(1) On locally manufactured cigarettes which are currently classified and taxed at
fifty-five percent (55%) or the exportation of which is not authorized by contract or
otherwise, fifty-five (55%) provided that the minimum tax shall not be less than Five
Pesos (P5.00) per pack.
"(2). On other locally manufactured cigarettes, forty-five percent (45%) provided
that the minimum tax shall not be less than Three Pesos (P3.00) per pack.
"x x x x x x

x x x.

"When the registered manufacturer's wholesale price or the actual manufacturer's

wholesale price whichever is higher of existing brands of cigarettes, including the
amounts intended to cover the taxes, of cigarettes packed in twenties does not exceed
Four Pesos and eighty centavos (P4.80) per pack, the rate shall be twenty percent
(20%)." (Italics supplied.)
About a month after the enactment and two (2) days before the effectivity of RA
7654, Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 37-93 ("RMC 37-93"), was issued by the
BIR the full text of which expressed:
"REPUBLIKA
NG
KAGAWARAN
NG
KAWANIHAN NG RENTAS INTERNAS

PILIPINAS
PANANALAPI

July 1, 1993
REVENUE MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 37-93
SUBJECT : Reclassification of Cigarettes Subject to Excise Tax
TO

: All Internal Revenue Officers and Others Concerned.

"In view of the issues raised on whether 'HOPE,' 'MORE' and 'CHAMPION'
cigarettes which are locally manufactured are appropriately considered as locally
manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand, this Office is compelled to review
the previous rulings on the matter.
"Section 142(c)(1) National Internal Revenue Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6956,
provides:

"'On locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand, fifty-five percent

(55%) Provided, That this rate shall apply regardless of whether or not the right to
use or title to the foreign brand was sold or transferred by its owner to the local
manufacturer. Whenever it has to be determined whether or not a cigarette bears a
foreign brand, the listing of brands manufactured in foreign countries appearing in
the current World Tobacco Directory shall govern."
"Under the foregoing, the test for imposition of the 55% ad valorem tax on cigarettes
is that the locally manufactured cigarettes bear a foreign brand regardless of whether
or not the right to use or title to the foreign brand was sold or transferred by its
owner to the local manufacturer. The brand must be originally owned by a foreign
manufacturer or producer. If ownership of the cigarette brand is, however, not
definitely determinable, 'x x x the listing of brands manufactured in foreign countries
appearing in the current World Tobacco Directory shall govern. x x x'
"'HOPE' is listed in the World Tobacco Directory as being manufactured by (a) Japan
Tobacco, Japan and (b) Fortune Tobacco, Philippines. 'MORE' is listed in the said
directory as being manufactured by: (a) Fills de Julia Reig, Andorra; (b) Rothmans,
Australia; (c) RJR-Macdonald, Canada; (d) Rettig-Strenberg, Finland; (e) Karellas,
Greece; (f) R.J. Reynolds, Malaysia; (g) Rothmans, New Zealand; (h) Fortune
Tobacco, Philippines; (i) R.J. Reynolds, Puerto Rico; (j) R.J. Reynolds, Spain; (k)
Tabacalera, Spain; (l) R.J. Reynolds, Switzerland; and (m) R.J. Reynolds, USA.
'Champion' is registered in the said directory as being manufactured by (a)
Commonwealth Bangladesh; (b) Sudan, Brazil; (c) Japan Tobacco, Japan; (d)
Fortune Tobacco, Philippines; (e) Haggar, Sudan; and (f) Tabac Reunies,
Switzerland.
"Since there is no showing who among the above-listed manufacturers of the
cigarettes bearing the said brands are the real owner/s thereof, then it follows that the
same shall be considered foreign brand for purposes of determining the ad valorem
tax pursuant to Section 142 of the National Internal Revenue Code. As held in BIR
Ruling No. 410-88, dated August 24, 1988, 'in cases where it cannot be established
or there is dearth of evidence as to whether a brand is foreign or not, resort to the
World Tobacco Directory should be made.'
"In view of the foregoing, the aforesaid brands of cigarettes, viz: 'HOPE,' 'MORE'
and 'CHAMPION' being manufactured by Fortune Tobacco Corporation are hereby
considered locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand subject to the
55% ad valorem tax on cigarettes.
"Any ruling inconsistent herewith is revoked or modified accordingly.
(S
G
D)

LI
W
A
Y
W
A
Y
VI
N
Z
O
N
SC
H
A
T
O
C
o
m
mi
ssi
on
er
"
On 02 July 1993, at about 17:50 hours, BIR Deputy Commissioner Victor A.
Deoferio, Jr., sent via telefax a copy of RMC 37-93 to Fortune Tobacco but it was
addressed to no one in particular. On 15 July 1993, Fortune Tobacco received, by
ordinary mail, a certified xerox copy of RMC 37-93.

brand subject to the 55% ad valorem tax on cigarettes is found to be defective,

invalid and unenforceable, such that when R.A. No. 7654 took effect on July 3,
1993, the brands in question were not CURRENTLY CLASSIFIED AND TAXED at
55% pursuant to Section 1142(c)(1) of the Tax Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7654
and were therefore still classified as other locally manufactured cigarettes and taxed
at 45% or 20% as the case may be.
"Accordingly, the deficiency ad valorem tax assessment issued on petitioner Fortune
Tobacco Corporation in the amount of P9,598,334.00, exclusive of surcharge and
interest, is hereby canceled for lack of legal basis.
"Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby enjoined from collecting
the deficiency tax assessment made and issued on petitioner in relation to the
implementation of RMC No. 37-93.
"SO ORDERED."
In its resolution, dated 11 October 1994, the CTA dismissed for lack of merit the
motion for reconsideration.
The CIR forthwith filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, questioning
the CTA's 10th August 1994 decision and 11th October 1994 resolution. On 31
March 1993, the appellate court's Special Thirteenth Division affirmed in all respects
the assailed decision and resolution.
In the instant petition, the Solicitor General argues: That "I.
RMC 37-93 IS A RULING OR OPINION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF THE TAX
CODE.

In a letter, dated 19 July 1993, addressed to the appellate division of the BIR,
Fortune Tobacco, requested for a review, reconsideration and recall of RMC 37-93.
The request was denied on 29 July 1993. The following day, or on 30 July 1993, the
CIR assessed Fortune Tobacco for ad valorem tax deficiency amounting to
P9,598,334.00.

"II.
BEING AN INTERPRETATIVE RULING OR OPINION, THE
PUBLICATION OF RMC 37-93, FILING OF COPIES THEREOF WITH THE UP
LAW CENTER AND PRIOR HEARING ARE NOT NECESSARY TO ITS
VALIDITY, EFFECTIVITY AND ENFORCEABILITY.

On 03 August 1993, Fortune Tobacco filed a petition for review with the CTA.

"III.
PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OR
RMC 37-93 ON JULY 2, 1993.

On 10 August 1994, the CTA upheld the position of Fortune Tobacco and adjudged:
"WHEREFORE, Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 37-93 reclassifying the brands
of cigarettes, viz: `HOPE,' `MORE' and `CHAMPION' being manufactured by
Fortune Tobacco Corporation as locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign

IV. RMC 37-93 IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY SINCE IT APPLIES TO ALL

LOCALLY MANUFACTURED CIGARETTES SIMILARLY SITUATED AS
'HOPE,' 'MORE' AND 'CHAMPION' CIGARETTES.

"V.
PETITIONER WAS NOT LEGALLY PROSCRIBED FROM
RECLASSIFYING HOPE, MORE AND CHAMPION CIGARETTES BEFORE
THE EFFECTIVITY OF R.A. NO. 7654.

"In addition such rule must be published. On the other hand, interpretative rules are
designed to provide guidelines to the law which the administrative agency is in
charge of enforcing."

VI. SINCE RMC 37-93 IS AN INTERPRETATIVE RULE, THE INQUIRY IS

NOT INTO ITS VALIDITY, EFFECTIVITY OR ENFORCEABILITY BUT INTO
ITS CORRECTNESS OR PROPRIETY; RMC 37-93 IS CORRECT."

It should be understandable that when an administrative rule is merely interpretative

in nature, its applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance for it gives no
real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. When, upon
the other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means
that can facilitate or render least cumbersome the implementation of the law but
substantially adds to or increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the
agency to accord at least to those directly affected a chance to be heard, and
thereafter to be duly informed, before that new issuance is given the force and effect
of law.

In fine, petitioner opines that RMC 37-93 is merely an interpretative ruling of the
BIR which can thus become effective without any prior need for notice and hearing,
nor publication, and that its issuance is not discriminatory since it would apply under
similar circumstances to all locally manufactured cigarettes.
The Court must sustain both the appellate court and the tax court.
Petitioner stresses on the wide and ample authority of the BIR in the issuance of
rulings for the effective implementation of the provisions of the National Internal
Revenue Code. Let it be made clear that such authority of the Commissioner is not
here doubted. Like any other government agency, however, the CIR may not
disregard legal requirements or applicable principles in the exercise of its quasilegislative powers.
Let us first distinguish between two kinds of administrative issuances - a legislative
rule and an interpretative rule.
In Misamis Oriental Association of Coco Traders, Inc., vs. Department of Finance
Secretary, the Court expressed:
"x x x a legislative rule is in the nature of subordinate legislation, designed to
implement a primary legislation by providing the details thereof. In the same way
that laws must have the benefit of public hearing, it is generally required that before
a legislative rule is adopted there must be hearing. In this connection, the
Administrative Code of 1987 provides:

A reading of RMC 37-93, particularly considering the circumstances under which it

has been issued, convinces us that the circular cannot be viewed simply as a
corrective measure (revoking in the process the previous holdings of past
Commissioners) or merely as construing Section 142(c)(1) of the NIRC, as amended,
but has, in fact and most importantly, been made in order to place "Hope Luxury,"
"Premium More" and "Champion" within the classification of locally manufactured
cigarettes bearing foreign brands and to thereby have them covered by RA 7654.
Specifically, the new law would have its amendatory provisions applied to locally
manufactured cigarettes which at the time of its effectivity were not so classified as
bearing foreign brands. Prior to the issuance of the questioned circular, "Hope
Luxury," "Premium More," and "Champion" cigarettes were in the category of
locally manufactured cigarettes not bearing foreign brand subject to 45% ad valorem
tax. Hence, without RMC 37-93, the enactment of RA 7654, would have had no new
tax rate consequence on private respondent's products. Evidently, in order to place
"Hope Luxury," "Premium More," and "Champion" cigarettes within the scope of the
amendatory law and subject them to an increased tax rate, the now disputed RMC
37-93 had to be issued. In so doing, the BIR not simply interpreted the law; verily, it
legislated under its quasi-legislative authority. The due observance of the
requirements of notice, of hearing, and of publication should not have been then
ignored.

"Public Participation. - If not otherwise required by law, an agency shall, as far as

practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested
parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule.

Indeed, the BIR itself, in its RMC 10-86, has observed and provided:

"(2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unless the proposed
rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least two (2)
weeks before the first hearing thereon.

Effectivity of Internal Revenue Rules and Regulations

"(3)

In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be observed.

"RMC NO. 10-86

"It has been observed that one of the problem areas bearing on compliance with
Internal Revenue Tax rules and regulations is lack or insufficiency of due notice to
the tax paying public. Unless there is due notice, due compliance therewith may not
be reasonably expected. And most importantly, their strict enforcement could

possibly suffer from legal infirmity in the light of the constitutional provision on
`due process of law' and the essence of the Civil Code provision concerning
effectivity of laws, whereby due notice is a basic requirement (Sec. 1, Art. IV,
Constitution; Art. 2, New Civil Code).

doctrine, the measure suffers from lack of uniformity of taxation. In its decision, the
CTA has keenly noted that other cigarettes bearing foreign brands have not been
similarly included within the scope of the circular, such as "1. Locally manufactured by ALHAMBRA INDUSTRIES, INC.

"In order that there shall be a just enforcement of rules and regulations, in
conformity with the basic element of due process, the following procedures are
hereby prescribed for the drafting, issuance and implementation of the said Revenue
Tax Issuances:
"(1). This Circular shall apply only to (a) Revenue Regulations; (b) Revenue Audit
Memorandum Orders; and (c) Revenue Memorandum Circulars and Revenue
Memorandum Orders bearing on internal revenue tax rules and regulations.
"(2). Except when the law otherwise expressly provides, the aforesaid internal
revenue tax issuances shall not begin to be operative until after due notice thereof
may be fairly presumed.
"Due notice of the said issuances may be fairly presumed only after the following
procedures have been taken:
"xxx

xxx

xxx

"(5). Strict compliance with the foregoing procedures is enjoined."

Nothing on record could tell us that it was either impossible or impracticable for the
BIR to observe and comply with the above requirements before giving effect to its
questioned circular.
Not insignificantly, RMC 37-93 might have likewise infringed on uniformity of
taxation.
Article VI, Section 28, paragraph 1, of the 1987 Constitution mandates taxation to be
uniform and equitable. Uniformity requires that all subjects or objects of taxation,
similarly situated, are to be treated alike or put on equal footing both in privileges
and liabilities. Thus, all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class must
be taxed at the same rate and the tax must operate with the same force and effect in
every place where the subject may be found.
Apparently, RMC 37-93 would only apply to "Hope Luxury," Premium More" and
"Champion" cigarettes and, unless petitioner would be willing to concede to the
submission of private respondent that the circular should, as in fact my esteemed
colleague Mr. Justice Bellosillo so expresses in his separate opinion, be considered
adjudicatory in nature and thus violative of due process following the Ang Tibay

(a) `PALM TREE' is listed as manufactured by office of Monopoly, Korea (Exhibit

`R')
"2. Locally manufactured by LA SUERTE CIGAR and CIGARETTE COMPANY
(a) `GOLDEN KEY' is listed being manufactured by United Tobacco, Pakistan
(Exhibit `S')
(b) `CANNON' is listed as being manufactured by Alpha Tobacco, Bangladesh
(Exhibit `T')
"3. Locally manufactured by LA PERLA INDUSTRIES, INC.
(a) `WHITE HORSE' is listed as being manufactured by Rothman's, Malaysia
(Exhibit `U')
(b) `RIGHT' is listed as being manufactured by SVENSKA, Tobaks, Sweden
(Exhibit `V-1')
"4. Locally manufactured by MIGHTY CORPORATION
(a) 'WHITE HORSE' is listed as being manufactured by Rothman's, Malaysia
(Exhibit 'U-1')
"5. Locally manufactured by STERLING TOBACCO CORPORATION
(a) UNION' is listed as being manufactured by Sumatra Tobacco, Indonesia and
Brown and Williamson, USA (Exhibit 'U-3')
(b) WINNER' is listed as being manufactured by Alpha Tobacco, Bangladesh;
Nanyang, Hongkong; Joo Lan, Malaysia; Pakistan Tobacco Co., Pakistan; Premier
Tobacco, Pakistan and Haggar, Sudan (Exhibit 'U-4')."
The court quoted at length from the transcript of the hearing conducted on 10 August
1993 by the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives; viz:

"THE CHAIRMAN. So you have specific information on Fortune Tobacco alone.

You don't have specific information on other tobacco manufacturers. Now, there are
other brands which are similarly situated. They are locally manufactured bearing
foreign brands. And may I enumerate to you all these brands, which are also listed in
the World Tobacco Directory x x x. Why were these brands not reclassified at 55 if
your want to give a level playing field to foreign manufacturers?
"MS. CHATO. Mr. Chairman, in fact, we have already prepared a Revenue
Memorandum Circular that was supposed to come after RMC No. 37-93 which have
really named specifically the list of locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a
foreign brand for excise tax purposes and includes all these brands that you
mentioned at 55 percent except that at that time, when we had to come up with this,
we were forced to study the brands of Hope, More and Champion because we were
given documents that would indicate the that these brands were actually being
claimed or patented in other countries because we went by Revenue Memorandum
Circular 1488 and we wanted to give some rationality to how it came about but we
couldn't find the rationale there. And we really found based on our own
interpretation that the only test that is given by that existing law would be
registration in the World Tobacco Directory. So we came out with this proposed
revenue memorandum circular which we forwarded to the Secretary of Finance
except that at that point in time, we went by the Republic Act 7654 in Section 1
which amended Section 142, C-1, it said, that on locally manufactured cigarettes
which are currently classified and taxed at 55 percent. So we were saying that when
this law took effect in July 3 and if we are going to come up with this revenue
circular thereafter, then I think our action would really be subject to question but we
feel that . . . Memorandum Circular Number 37-93 would really cover even similarly
situated brands. And in fact, it was really because of the study, the short time that we
were given to study the matter that we could not include all the rest of the other
brands that would have been really classified as foreign brand if we went by the law
itself. I am sure that by the reading of the law, you would without that ruling by
Commissioner Tan they would really have been included in the definition or in the
classification of foregoing brands. These brands that you referred to or just read to
us and in fact just for your information, we really came out with a proposed revenue
memorandum circular for those brands. (Italics supplied)
"Exhibit 'FF-2-C', pp. V-5 TO V-6, VI-1 to VI-3).
"x x x

xxx

x x x.

"MS. CHATO. x x x But I do agree with you now that it cannot and in fact that is
why I felt that we . . . I wanted to come up with a more extensive coverage and
precisely why I asked that revenue memorandum circular that would cover all those
similarly situated would be prepared but because of the lack of time and I came out
with a study of RA 7654, it would not have been possible to really come up with the
reclassification or the proper classification of all brands that are listed there. x x x'
(italics supplied) (Exhibit 'FF-2d', page IX-1)

"x x x

xxx

x x x.

"HON. DIAZ. But did you not consider that there are similarly situated?
"MS. CHATO. That is precisely why, Sir, after we have come up with this Revenue
Memorandum Circular No. 37-93, the other brands came about the would have also
clarified RMC 37-93 by I was saying really because of the fact that I was just
recently appointed and the lack of time, the period that was allotted to us to come up
with the right actions on the matter, we were really caught by the July 3 deadline.
But in fact, We have already prepared a revenue memorandum circular clarifying
with the other . . . does not yet, would have been a list of locally manufactured
cigarettes bearing a foreign brand for excise tax purposes which would include all
the other brands that were mentioned by the Honorable Chairman. (Italics supplied)
(Exhibit 'FF-2-d,' par. IX-4)."18
All taken, the Court is convinced that the hastily promulgated RMC 37-93 has fallen
short of a valid and effective administrative issuance.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals, sustaining that of the Court of
Tax Appeals, is AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Kapunan, J., concurs.
Padilla, J., joins Justice Hermosisima, Jr., in his dissenting opinion.
Bellosillo, J., see separate opinion.
Hermosisima, Jr., J., see dissenting opinion.
Republic
SUPREME
Manila

of

the

Philippines
COURT

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 108524 November 10, 1994

MISAMIS ORIENTAL ASSOCIATION OF COCO TRADERS, INC., petitioner,

vs.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE SECRETARY, COMMISSIONER OF THE
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE (BIR), AND REVENUE DISTRICT
OFFICER, BIR MISAMIS ORIENTAL, respondents.

owner of the land from which the same are produced. The sale made by any other
person or entity, like a trader or dealer, is not exempt from the tax. On the other hand,
under 103(b) the sale of agricultural food products in their original state is exempt
from VAT at all stages of production or distribution regardless of who the seller is.

Damasing Law Office for petitioner.

The question is whether copra is an agricultural food or non-food product for

purposes of this provision of the NIRC. On June 11, 1991, respondent Commissioner
of Internal Revenue issued the circular in question, classifying copra as an
agricultural non-food product and declaring it "exempt from VAT only if the sale is
made by the primary producer pursuant to Section 103(a) of the Tax Code, as
amended." 2

MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for prohibition and injunction seeking to nullify Revenue
Memorandum Circular No. 47-91 and enjoin the collection by respondent revenue
officials of the Value Added Tax (VAT) on the sale of copra by members of petitioner
organization. 1
Petitioner Misamis Oriental Association of Coco Traders, Inc. is a domestic
corporation whose members, individually or collectively, are engaged in the buying
and selling of copra in Misamis Oriental. The petitioner alleges that prior to the
issuance of Revenue Memorandum Circular 47-91 on June 11, 1991, which
implemented VAT Ruling 190-90, copra was classified as agricultural food product
under $ 103(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code and, therefore, exempt from
VAT at all stages of production or distribution.
Respondents represent departments of the executive branch of government charged
with the generation of funds and the assessment, levy and collection of taxes and
other imposts.
The pertinent provision of the NIRC states:
Sec. 103. Exempt Transactions. The following shall be exempt
from the value-added tax:
(a) Sale of nonfood agricultural, marine and forest products in their
original state by the primary producer or the owner of the land
where the same are produced;
(b) Sale or importation in their original state of agricultural and
marine food products, livestock and poultry of a kind generally
used as, or yielding or producing foods for human consumption,
and breeding stock and genetic material therefor;
Under 103(a), as above quoted, the sale of agricultural non-food products in their
original state is exempt from VAT only if the sale is made by the primary producer or

The reclassification had the effect of denying to the petitioner the exemption it
previously enjoyed when copra was classified as an agricultural food product under
103(b) of the NIRC. Petitioner challenges RMC No. 47-91 on various grounds,
which will be presently discussed although not in the order raised in the petition for
prohibition.
First. Petitioner contends that the Bureau of Food and Drug of the Department of
Health and not the BIR is the competent government agency to determine the proper
classification of food products. Petitioner cites the opinion of Dr. Quintin Kintanar of
the Bureau of Food and Drug to the effect that copra should be considered "food"
because it is produced from coconut which is food and 80% of coconut products are
edible.
On the other hand, the respondents argue that the opinion of the BIR, as the
government agency charged with the implementation and interpretation of the tax
laws, is entitled to great respect.
We agree with respondents. In interpreting 103(a) and (b) of the NIRC, the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue gave it a strict construction consistent with the
rule that tax exemptions must be strictly construed against the taxpayer and liberally
in favor of the state. Indeed, even Dr. Kintanar said that his classification of copra as
food was based on "the broader definition of food which includes agricultural
commodities and other components used in the manufacture/processing of food."
The full text of his letter reads:
10 April 1991
Mr.
VICTOR
Chairman
VAT
Bureau
of
Diliman, Quezon City
Dear Mr. Deoferio:

A.

DEOFERIO,
JR.
Review
Committee
Internal
Revenue

This is to clarify a previous communication made by this Office

about copra in a letter dated 05 December 1990 stating that copra
is not classified as food. The statement was made in the context of
BFAD's regulatory responsibilities which focus mainly on foods
that are processed and packaged, and thereby copra is not covered.
However, in the broader definition of food which include
agricultural commodities and other components used in the
manufacture/ processing of food, it is our opinion that copra should
be classified as an agricultural food product since copra is
produced from coconut meat which is food and based on available
information, more than 80% of products derived from copra are
edible products.

Public Participation. If not otherwise required by law, an

agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices of
proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to
submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule.
(2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unless
the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of
general circulation at least two (2) weeks before the first hearing
thereon.
(3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be
observed. 4

In addition such rule must be published. 5 On the other hand, interpretative rules are
Very trulydesigned
yours, to provide guidelines to the law which the administrative agency is in
charge of enforcing.
QUINTIN
L.
KINTANAR,
M.D.,in considering a legislative rule a court is free to make three inquiries:
Accordingly,
Ph.D. (i) whether the rule is within the delegated authority of the administrative agency; (ii)
Director whether it is reasonable; and (iii) whether it was issued pursuant to proper procedure.
Assistant But
Secretary
of is not free to substitute its judgment as to the desirability or wisdom of
the court
Health for
Standards
the rule for the legislative body, by its delegation of administrative judgment, has
and Regulations
committed those questions to administrative judgments and not to judicial
judgments. In the case of an interpretative rule, the inquiry is not into the validity but
Moreover, as the government agency charged with the enforcement of the law, the
into the correctness or propriety of the rule. As a matter of power a court, when
opinion of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in the absence of any showing
confronted with an interpretative rule, is free to (i) give the force of law to the rule;
that it is plainly wrong, is entitled to great weight. Indeed, the ruling was made by
(ii) go to the opposite extreme and substitute its judgment; or (iii) give some
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the exercise of his power under 245 of
intermediate degree of authoritative weight to the interpretative rule. 6
the NIRC to "make rulings or opinions in connection with the implementation of the
provisions of internal revenue laws, including rulings on the classification of articles
In the case at bar, we find no reason for holding that respondent Commissioner erred
for sales tax and similar purposes."
in not considering copra as an "agricultural food product" within the meaning of
103(b) of the NIRC. As the Solicitor General contends, "copra per se is not food, that
Second. Petitioner complains that it was denied due process because it was not heard
is, it is not intended for human consumption. Simply stated, nobody eats copra for
before the ruling was made. There is a distinction in administrative law between
food." That previous Commissioners considered it so, is not reason for holding that
legislative rules and interpretative rules. 3 There would be force in petitioner's
the present interpretation is wrong. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is not
argument if the circular in question were in the nature of a legislative rule. But it is
bound by the ruling of his predecessors. 7 To the contrary, the overruling of decisions
not. It is a mere interpretative rule.
is inherent in the interpretation of laws.
The reason for this distinction is that a legislative rule is in the nature of subordinate
legislation, designed to implement a primary legislation by providing the details
thereof. In the same way that laws must have the benefit of public hearing, it is
generally required that before a legislative rule is adopted there must be hearing. In
this connection, the Administrative Code of 1987 provides:

Third. Petitioner likewise claims that RMC No. 47-91 is discriminatory and violative
of the equal protection clause of the Constitution because while coconut farmers and
copra producers are exempt, traders and dealers are not, although both sell copra in
its original state. Petitioners add that oil millers do not enjoy tax credit out of the
VAT payment of traders and dealers.

The argument has no merit. There is a material or substantial difference between

coconut farmers and copra producers, on the one hand, and copra traders and dealers,
on the other. The former produce and sell copra, the latter merely sell copra. The
Constitution does not forbid the differential treatment of persons so long as there is a
reasonable basis for classifying them differently. 8
It is not true that oil millers are exempt from VAT. Pursuant to 102 of the NIRC,
they are subject to 10% VAT on the sale of services. Under 104 of the Tax Code,
they are allowed to credit the input tax on the sale of copra by traders and dealers,
but there is no tax credit if the sale is made directly by the copra producer as the sale
is VAT exempt. In the same manner, copra traders and dealers are allowed to credit
the input tax on the sale of copra by other traders and dealers, but there is no tax
credit if the sale is made by the producer.

COMMISSIONER
OF
INTERNAL
REVENUE,
petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, R.O.H. AUTO PRODUCTS
PHILIPPINES, INC. and THE HON. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.

VITUG, J.:
On 22 August 1986, during the period when the President of the Republic still
wielded legislative powers, Executive Order No. 41 was promulgated declaring a
one-time tax amnesty on unpaid income taxes, later amended to include estate and
donor's taxes and taxes on business, for the taxable years 1981 to 1985.

Fourth. It is finally argued that RMC No. 47-91 is counterproductive because traders
and dealers would be forced to buy copra from coconut farmers who are exempt
from the VAT and that to the extent that prices are reduced the government would
lose revenues as the 10% tax base is correspondingly diminished.

Availing itself of the amnesty, respondent R.O.H. Auto Products Philippines, Inc.,
filed, in October 1986 and November 1986, its Tax Amnesty Return No. 34-F00146-41 and Supplemental Tax Amnesty Return No. 34-F-00146-64-B,
respectively, and paid the corresponding amnesty taxes due.

This is not so. The sale of agricultural non-food products is exempt from VAT only
when made by the primary producer or owner of the land from which the same is
produced, but in the case of agricultural food products their sale in their original state
is exempt at all stages of production or distribution. At any rate, the argument that
the classification of copra as agricultural non-food product is counterproductive is a
question of wisdom or policy which should be addressed to respondent officials and
to Congress.

Prior to this availment, petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in a

communication received by private respondent on 13 August 1986, assessed the
latter deficiency income and business taxes for its fiscal years ended 30 September
1981 and 30 September 1982 in an aggregate amount of P1,410,157.71. The taxpayer
wrote back to state that since it had been able to avail itself of the tax amnesty, the
deficiency tax notice should forthwith be cancelled and withdrawn. The request was
denied by the Commissioner, in his letter of 22 November 1988, on the ground that
Revenue Memorandum Order No. 4-87, dated 09 February 1987, implementing
Executive Order No. 41, had construed the amnesty coverage to include only
assessments issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue after the promulgation of the
executive order on 22 August 1986 and not to assessments theretofore made. The
invoked provisions of the memorandum order read:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Regalado and Puno, JJ., concur.

TO: All Internal Revenue Officers and Others Concerned:

Republic
SUPREME
Manila

of

the

Philippines
COURT

1.0. To give effect and substance to the immunity provisions of the

tax amnesty under Executive Order No. 41, as expanded by
Executive Order No. 64, the following instructions are hereby
issued:

THIRD DIVISION

xxx xxx xxx

G.R. No. 108358 January 20, 1995

1.02. A certification by the Tax Amnesty Implementation Officer of

the fact of availment of the said tax amnesty shall be a sufficient
basis for:

xxx xxx xxx

1.02.3. In appropriate cases, the cancellation/withdrawal of
assessment notices and letters of demand issued after August 21,
1986 for the collection of income, business, estate or donor's taxes
due during the same taxable years. 1 (Emphasis supplied)
Private respondent appealed the Commissioner's denial to the Court of Tax Appeals.
Ruling for the taxpayer, the tax court said:
Respondent (herein petitioner Commissioner) failed to present any
case or law which proves that an assessment can withstand or
negate the force and effects of a tax amnesty. This burden of proof
on the petitioner (herein respondent taxpayer) was created by the
clear and express terms of the executive order's intention
qualified availers of the amnesty may pay an amnesty tax in lieu of
said unpaid taxes which are forgiven (Section 2, Section 5,
Executive Order No. 41, as amended). More specifically, the plain
provisions in the statute granting tax amnesty for unpaid taxes for
the period January 1, 1981 to December 31, 1985 shifted the
burden of proof on respondent to show how the issuance of an
assessment before the date of the promulgation of the executive
order could have a reasonable relation with the objective periods of
the amnesty, so as to make petitioner still answerable for a tax
liability which, through the statute, should have been erased with
the proper availment of the amnesty.

Admittedly, respondent taxpayer does not fall under any of the . . .

exceptions. The added exception urged by petitioner
Commissioner based on Revenue Memorandum Order No. 4-87,
further restricting the scope of the amnesty clearly amounts to an
act of administrative legislation quite contrary to the mandate of
the law which the regulation ought to implement.
xxx xxx xxx
Lastly, by its very nature, a tax amnesty, being a general pardon or
intentional overlooking by the State of its authority to impose
penalties on persons otherwise guilty of evasion or violation of a
revenue or tax law, partakes of an absolute forgiveness or waiver
by the Government of its right to collect what otherwise would be
due it, and in this sense, prejudicial thereto, particularly to give tax
evaders, who wish to relent and are willing to reform a chance to
do so and thereby become a part of the new society with a clean
slate. (Republic vs. Intermediate Appellate Court. 196 SCRA 335,
340 [1991] citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Botelho
Shipping Corp., 20 SCRA 487) To follow [the restrictive
application of Revenue Memorandum Order No. 4-87 pressed by
petitioner Commissioner would be to work against the raison
d'etre of E.O. 41, as amended, i.e., to raise government revenues
by encouraging taxpayers to declare their untaxed income and pay
the tax due thereon. (E.O. 41, first paragraph)] 3
In this petition for review, the Commissioner raises these related issues:

Additionally, the exceptions enumerated in Section 4 of Executive

Order No. 41, as amended, do not indicate any reference to an
assessment or pending investigation aside from one arising from
information furnished by an informer. . . . Thus, we deem that the
rule in Revenue Memorandum Order No. 4-87 promulgating that
only assessments issued after August 21, 1986 shall be abated by
the amnesty is beyond the contemplation of Executive Order No.
41, as amended. 2

1. WHETHER OR NOT REVENUE MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 4-87,

PROMULGATED TO IMPLEMENT E.O. NO. 41, IS VALID;
2. WHETHER OR NOT SAID DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENTS IN
QUESTION WERE EXTINGUISHED BY REASON OR PRIVATE
RESPONDENT'S AVAILMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 41 AS
AMENDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 64;

On appeal by the Commissioner to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the tax court
was affirmed. The appellate court further observed:

3. WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAS OVERCOME

THE PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENTS. 4

In the instant case, examining carefully the words used in

Executive Order No. 41, as amended, we find nothing which
justifies petitioner Commissioner's ground for denying respondent
taxpayer's claim to the benefits of the amnesty law. Section 4 of the
subject law enumerates, in no uncertain terms, taxpayers who may
not avail of the amnesty granted,. . . .

The authority of the Minister of Finance (now the Secretary of Finance), in

conjunction with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, to promulgate all needful
rules and regulations for the effective enforcement of internal revenue laws cannot be
controverted. Neither can it be disputed that such rules and regulations, as well as
administrative opinions and rulings, ordinarily should deserve weight and respect by
the courts. Much more fundamental than either of the above, however, is that 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.

Sec. 4. Exceptions. The following taxpayers may not avail

themselves of the amnesty herein granted:
a) Those falling under the provisions of
Executive Order Nos. 1, 2 and 14;

The real and only issue is whether or not the position taken by the Commissioner
coincides with the meaning and intent of executive Order No. 41.

b) Those with income tax cases already filed in

Court as of the effectivity hereof;

We agree with both the court of Appeals and court of Tax Appeals that Executive
Order No. 41 is quite explicit and requires hardly anything beyond a simple
application of its provisions. It reads:

c) Those with criminal cases involving violations

of the income tax already filed in court as of the
effectivity filed in court as of the effectivity
hereof;

Sec. 1. Scope of Amnesty. A one-time tax amnesty covering

unpaid income taxes for the years 1981 to 1985 is hereby declared.
Sec. 2. Conditions of the Amnesty. A taxpayer who wishes to
avail himself of the tax amnesty shall, on or before October 31,
1986;

d) Those that have withholding tax liabilities

under the National Internal Revenue Code, as
amended, insofar as the said liabilities are
concerned;

a) file a sworn statement declaring his net worth

as of December 31, 1985;

e) Those with tax cases pending investigation by

the Bureau of Internal Revenue as of the
effectivity hereof as a result of information
furnished under Section 316 of the National
Internal Revenue Code, as amended;

b) file a certified true copy of his statement

declaring his net worth as of December 31, 1980
on record with the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
or if no such record exists, file a statement of
said net worth therewith, subject to verification
by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;

f) Those with pending cases involving

unexplained or unlawfully acquired wealth
before the Sandiganbayan;

c) file a return and pay a tax equivalent to ten per

cent (10%) of the increase in net worth from
December 31, 1980 to December 31, 1985:
Provided, That in no case shall the tax be less
than P5,000.00 for individuals and P10,000.00
for judicial persons.
Sec. 3. Computation of Net Worth. In computing the net worths
referred to in Section 2 hereof, the following rules shall govern:
a) Non-cash assets shall be valued at acquisition
cost.
b) Foreign currencies shall be valued at the rates
of exchange prevailing as of the date of the net
worth statement.

g) Those liable under Title Seven, Chapter Three

(Frauds, Illegal Exactions and Transactions) and
Chapter Four (Malversation of Public Funds and
Property) of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 9. The Minister of finance, upon the recommendation of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, shall promulgate the necessary
rules and regulations to implement this Executive Order.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 11. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.

DONE in the City of Manila, this 22nd day of August in the year
of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-six.

and the same shall not be examined, inquired or

looked into by any person, government official,
bureau or office.

The period of the amnesty was later extended to 05 December 1986 from 31 October
1986 by Executive Order No. 54, dated 04 November 1986, and, its coverage
expanded, under Executive Order No. 64, dated 17 November 1986, to include estate
and honors taxes and taxes on business.

c) The books of account and other records of the

taxpayer for the period from January 1, 1981 to
December 31, 1985 shall not be examined for
income tax purposes: Provided, That the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue may
authorize in writing the examination of the said
books of accounts and other records to verify the
validity or correctness of a claim for grant of any
tax refund, tax credit (other than refund on credit
of withheld taxes on wages), tax incentives,
and/or exemptions under existing laws.

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.
It might not be amiss to recall that the taxable periods covered by the amnesty
include the years immediately preceding the 1986 revolution during which time there
had been persistent calls, all too vivid to be easily forgotten, for civil disobedience,
most particularly in the payment of taxes, to the martial law regime. It should be
understandable then that those who ultimately took over the reigns of government
following the successful revolution would promptly provide for abroad, and not a
confined, tax amnesty.

There is no pretension that the tax amnesty returns and due payments made by the
taxpayer did not conform with the conditions expressed in the amnesty order.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the court of Appeals, sustaining that of the court of
Tax Appeals, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Relative to the two other issued raised by the Commissioner, we need only quote
from Executive Order No. 41 itself; thus:
Sec. 6. Immunities and Privileges. Upon full compliance with
the conditions of the tax amnesty and the rules and regulations
issued pursuant to this Executive order, the taxpayer shall enjoy the
following immunities and privileges:
a) The taxpayer shall be relieved of any income
tax liability on any untaxed income from January
1, 1981 to December 31, 1985, including
increments thereto and penalties on account of
the non-payment of the said tax. Civil, criminal
or administrative liability arising from the nonpayment of the said tax, which are actionable
under the National Internal Revenue Code, as
amended, are likewise deemed extinguished.
b) The taxpayer's tax amnesty declaration shall
not be admissible in evidence in all proceedings
before judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative
bodies, in which he is a defendant or respondent,

Feliciano, Bidin, Romero and Melo, JJ., concur.

Republic
SUPREME
Manila

of

the

Philippines
COURT

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-66653 June 19, 1986
COMMISSIONER
OF
INTERNAL
REVENUE,
petitioner,
vs.
BURROUGHS LIMITED AND THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.
Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano & Hernandez Law Office for private respondent.

PARAS, J.:

tax paid .............................................................Pl,147,058.70

Petition for certiorari to review and set aside the Decision dated June 27, 1983 of
respondent Court of Tax Appeals in its C.T.A. Case No. 3204, entitled "Burroughs
Limited vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" which ordered petitioner
Commissioner of Internal Revenue to grant in favor of private respondent Burroughs
Limited, tax credit in the sum of P172,058.90, representing erroneously overpaid
branch profit remittance tax.

Less: Branch profit remittance

Burroughs Limited is a foreign corporation authorized to engage in trade or business

in the Philippines through a branch office located at De la Rosa corner Esteban
Streets, Legaspi Village, Makati, Metro Manila.
Sometime in March 1979, said branch office applied with the Central Bank for
authority to remit to its parent company abroad, branch profit amounting to
P7,647,058.00. Thus, on March 14, 1979, it paid the 15% branch profit remittance
tax, pursuant to Sec. 24 (b) (2) (ii) and remitted to its head office the amount of
P6,499,999.30 computed as follows:
Amount applied for remittance................................ P7,647,058.00
Deduct: 15% branch profit
remittance tax ..............................................1,147,058.70
Net amount actually remitted.................................. P6,499,999.30
Claiming that the 15% profit remittance tax should have been computed on the basis
of the amount actually remitted (P6,499,999.30) and not on the amount before profit
remittance tax (P7,647,058.00), private respondent filed on December 24, 1980, a
written claim for the refund or tax credit of the amount of P172,058.90 representing
alleged overpaid branch profit remittance tax, computed as follows:
Profits actually remitted .........................................P6,499,999.30
Remittance tax rate .......................................................15%
Branch profit remittance tax-

tax as above computed................................................. 974,999.89

Total amount refundable........................................... P172,058.81
On February 24, 1981, private respondent filed with respondent court, a petition for
review, docketed as C.T.A. Case No. 3204 for the recovery of the above-mentioned
amount of P172,058.81.
On June 27, 1983, respondent court rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of
which reads
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Commission of Internal Revenue is hereby ordered to
grant a tax credit in favor of petitioner Burroughs Limited the amount of P
172,058.90. Without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Unable to obtain a reconsideration from the aforesaid decision, petitioner filed the
instant petition before this Court with the prayers as herein earlier stated upon the
sole issue of whether the tax base upon which the 15% branch profit remittance tax
shall be imposed under the provisions of section 24(b) of the Tax Code, as amended,
is the amount applied for remittance on the profit actually remitted after deducting
the 15% profit remittance tax. Stated differently is private respondent Burroughs
Limited legally entitled to a refund of the aforementioned amount of P172,058.90.
We rule in the affirmative. The pertinent provision of the National Revenue Code is
Sec. 24 (b) (2) (ii) which states:
Sec. 24. Rates of tax on corporations....
(b) Tax on foreign corporations. ...
(2) (ii) Tax on branch profits remittances. Any profit remitted
abroad by a branch to its head office shall be subject to a tax of
fifteen per cent (15 %) ...

due thereon ......................................................P 974,999.89

Branch profit remittance

In a Bureau of Internal Revenue ruling dated January 21, 1980 by then Acting
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Hon. Efren I. Plana the aforequoted provision
had been interpreted to mean that "the tax base upon which the 15% branch profit
remittance tax ... shall be imposed...(is) the profit actually remitted abroad and not on

the total branch profits out of which the remittance is to be made. " The said ruling is
hereinbelow quoted as follows:
In reply to your letter of November 3, 1978, relative to your query
as to the tax base upon which the 15% branch profits remittance
tax provided for under Section 24 (b) (2) of the 1977 Tax Code
shall be imposed, please be advised that the 15% branch profit tax
shall be imposed on the branch profits actually remitted abroad and
not on the total branch profits out of which the remittance is to be
made.

Considering that the 15% branch profit remittance tax is imposed

and collected at source, necessarily the tax base should be the
amount actually applied for by the branch with the Central Bank of
the Philippines as profit to be remitted abroad.
Petitioner's aforesaid contention is without merit. What is applicable in the case at
bar is still the Revenue Ruling of January 21, 1980 because private respondent
Burroughs Limited paid the branch profit remittance tax in question on March 14,
1979. Memorandum Circular No. 8-82 dated March 17, 1982 cannot be given
retroactive effect in the light of Section 327 of the National Internal Revenue Code
which provides-

Please be guided accordingly.

Sec. 327. Non-retroactivity of rulings. Any revocation,
modification, or reversal of any of the rules and regulations
promulgated in accordance with the preceding section or any of the
rulings or circulars promulgated by the Commissioner shag not be
given retroactive application if the revocation, modification, or
reversal will be prejudicial to the taxpayer except in the following
cases (a) where the taxpayer deliberately misstates or omits
material facts from his return or in any document required of him
by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; (b) where the facts
subsequently gathered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue are
materially different from the facts on which the ruling is based, or
(c) where the taxpayer acted in bad faith. (ABS-CBN Broadcasting
Corp. v. CTA, 108 SCRA 151-152)

Applying, therefore, the aforequoted ruling, the claim of private respondent that it
made an overpayment in the amount of P172,058.90 which is the difference between
the remittance tax actually paid of Pl,147,058.70 and the remittance tax that should
have been paid of P974,999,89, computed as follows
Profits actually remitted......................................... P6,499,999.30
Remittance tax rate.............................................................. 15%
Remittance tax due................................................... P974,999.89
is well-taken. As correctly held by respondent Court in its assailed
decisionRespondent concedes at least that in his ruling dated January 21,
1980 he held that under Section 24 (b) (2) of the Tax Code the 15%
branch profit remittance tax shall be imposed on the profit actually
remitted abroad and not on the total branch profit out of which the
remittance is to be made. Based on such ruling petitioner should
have paid only the amount of P974,999.89 in remittance tax
computed by taking the 15% of the profits of P6,499,999.89 in
remittance tax actually remitted to its head office in the United
States, instead of Pl,147,058.70, on its net profits of
P7,647,058.00. Undoubtedly, petitioner has overpaid its branch
profit remittance tax in the amount of P172,058.90.
Petitioner contends that respondent is no longer entitled to a refund because
Memorandum Circular No. 8-82 dated March 17, 1982 had revoked and/or repealed
the BIR ruling of January 21, 1980. The said memorandum circular states

The prejudice that would result to private respondent Burroughs Limited by a

retroactive application of Memorandum Circular No. 8-82 is beyond question for it
would be deprived of the substantial amount of P172,058.90. And, insofar as the
enumerated exceptions are concerned, admittedly, Burroughs Limited does not fall
under any of them.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of respondent Court of Tax Appeals is hereby
AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Republic
SUPREME
Manila

of

FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-52306 October 12, 1981

the

Philippines
COURT

ABS-CBN
BROADCASTING
CORPORATION,
petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF TAX APPEALS and THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, respondents.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Tax
Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 2809, dated November 29, 1979, which affirmed the
assessment by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, dated April 16, 1971, of a
deficiency withholding income tax against petitioner, ABS-CBN Broadcasting
Corporation, for the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 in the respective amounts of
P75,895.24, P99,239.18, P128,502.00 and P222, 260.64, or a total of P525,897.06.
During the period pertinent to this case, petitioner corporation was engaged in the
business of telecasting local as well as foreign films acquired from foreign
corporations not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines. for which
petitioner paid rentals after withholding income tax of 30%of one-half of the film
rentals.
In so far as the income tax on non-resident corporations is concerned, section 24 (b)
of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 2343 dated
June 20, 1959, used to provide:
(b) Tax on foreign corporations.(1) Non-resident corporations.
There shall be levied, collected, and paid for each taxable year,
in lieu of the tax imposed by the preceding paragraph, upon the
amount received by every foreign corporation not engaged in trade
or business within the Philippines, from an sources within the
Philippines, as interest, dividends, rents, salaries, wages,
premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments,
or other fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits,
and income, a tax equal to thirty per centum of such amount.
(Emphasis supplied)
On April 12, 1961, in implementation of the aforequoted provision, the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued General Circular No. V-334 reading thus:
In connection with Section 24 (b) of Tax Code, the amendment
introduced by Republic Act No. 2343, under which an income tax
equal to 30% is levied upon the amount received by every foreign
corporation not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines
from all sources within this country as interest, dividends, rents,

salaries,
wages,
premiums,
annuities,
compensations,
remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable annual
or periodical gains, profits, and income, it has been determined that
the tax is still imposed on income derived from capital, or labor, or
both combined, in accordance with the basic principle of income
taxation (Sec. 39, Income Tax Regulations), and that a mere return
of capital or investment is not income (Par. 5,06, 1 Mertens Law of
Federal 'Taxation). Since according to the findings of the Special
Team who inquired into business of the non-resident foreign film
distributors, the distribution or exhibition right on a film is
invariably acquired for a consideration, either for a lump sum or a
percentage of the film rentals, whether from a parent company or
an independent outside producer, apart of the receipts of a nonresident foreign film distributor derived from said film represents,
therefore, a return of investment.
xxx xxx xxx
4. The local distributor should withhold 30% of one-half of the
film rentals paid to the non-resident foreign film distributor and
pay the same to this office in accordance with law unless the nonresident foreign film distributor makes a prior settlement of its
income tax liability. (Emphasis ours).
Pursuant to the foregoing, petitioner dutifully withheld and turned over to the Bureau
of Internal Revenue the amount of 30% of one-half of the film rentals paid by it to
foreign corporations not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines. The last
year that petitioner withheld taxes pursuant to the foregoing Circular was in 1968.
On June 27, 1968, Republic Act No. 5431 amended Section 24 (b) of the Tax Code
increasing the tax rate from 30 % to 35 % and revising the tax basis from "such
amount" referring to rents, etc. to "gross income," as follows:
(b) Tax on foreign corporations.(1) Non-resident corporations.
A foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business in the
Philippines including a foreign life insurance company not
engaged in the life insurance business in the Philippines shall pay a
tax equal to thirty-five per cent of the gross income received
during each taxable year from all sources within the Philippines, as
interests, dividends, rents, royalties, salaries, wages, premiums,
annuities, compensations, remunerations for technical services or
otherwise, emoluments or other fixed or determinable annual,
periodical or casual gains, profits, and income, and capital gains,
Provided however, That premiums shah not include reinsurance
premiums. (Emphasis supplied)

On February 8, 1971, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued Revenue

Memorandum Circular No. 4-71, revoking General Circular No. V-334, and holding
that the latter was "erroneous for lack of legal basis," because "the tax therein
prescribed should be based on gross income without deduction whatever," thus:
After a restudy and analysis of Section 24 (b) of the National
Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 5431,
and guided by the interpretation given by tax authorities to a
similar provision in the Internal Revenue Code of the United
States, on which the aforementioned provision of our Tax Code
was patterned, this Office has come to the conclusion that the tax
therein prescribed should be based on gross income without t
deduction whatever. Consequently, the ruling in General Circular
No. V-334, dated April 12, 1961, allowing the deduction of the
proportionate cost of production or exhibition of motion picture
films from the rental income of non- resident foreign corporations,
is erroneous for lack of legal basis.
In view thereof, General Circular No. V-334, dated April 12, 1961,
is hereby revoked and henceforth, local films distributors and
exhibitors shall deduct and withhold 35% of the entire amount
payable by them to non-resident foreign corporations, as film
rental or royalty, or whatever such payment may be denominated,
without any deduction whatever, pursuant to Section 24 (b), and
pay the withheld taxes in accordance with Section 54 of the Tax
Code, as amended.
All rulings inconsistent with this Circular is likewise revoked.
(Emphasis ours)
On the basis of this new Circular, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue
issued against petitioner a letter of assessment and demand dated April 15, 1971, but
allegedly released by it and received by petitioner on April 12, 1971, requiring them
to pay deficiency withholding income tax on the remitted film rentals for the years
1965 through 1968 and film royalty as of the end of 1968 in the total amount of
P525,897.06 computed as follows:
1965

Total amount remitted

P 511,059.48

Withholding tax due thereon

153,318.00

Less:
Amount
assessed

89,000.00

already

Balance

P64,318.00

Add: 1/2% mo. int. fr. 4-16-66

to 4-16-69

11,577.24

Total
amount
collectible

P 75,895.24

due

&

1966

Total amount remitted

P373,492.24

Withholding tax due thereon

112,048.00

Less:
Amount
assessed

27,947.00

already

Balance

84,101.00

Add: 11/2%mo. int. fr. 4-1667 to 4-116-70

15,138.18

Total
amount
collectible

P99,239.18

1967

due

&

Total amount remitted

P601,160.65

Withholding
thereon

180,348.00

tax

due

Less: Amount already

assessed

71,448.00

Balance

108,900.00

Add: 1/2% mo. int. fr. 416-68 to 4-16-71

19,602.00

Total amount due &

collectible

P128,502.00

1968

Total amount remitted

P881,816.92

Total amount
collectible

due

&

P222,260.44 1

On May 5, 1971, petitioner requested for a reconsideration and withdrawal of the

assessment. However, without acting thereon, respondent, on April 6, 1976, issued a
warrant of distraint and levy over petitioner's personal as well as real properties. The
petitioner then filed its Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals whose
Decision, dated November 29, 1979, is, in turn, the subject of this review. The Tax
Court held:
For the reasons given, the Court finds the assessment issued by
respondent on April 16, 1971 against petitioner in the amounts of
P75,895.24, P 99,239.18, P128,502.00 and P222,260.64 or a total
of P525,897.06 as deficiency withholding income tax for the years
1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968, respectively, in accordance with law.
As prayed for, the petition for review filed in this case is
dismissed, and petitioner ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation is
hereby ordered to pay the sum of P525,897.06 to respondent
Commissioner of Internal Revenue as deficiency withholding
income tax for the taxable years 1965 thru 1968, plus the surcharge
and interest which have accrued thereon incident to delinquency
pursuant to Section 51 (e) of the National Internal Revenue Code,
as amended.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed at
petitioner's cost.
SO ORDERED. 2

Withholding
thereon

tax

Less: Amount
assessed

due

291,283.00
The issues raised are two-fold:

already

92,886.00

Balance

P198,447.00

Add: 1/2% mo. int. fr. 416-69 to 4-29-71

23,813.64

I. Whether or not respondent can apply General Circular No. 4-71

retroactively and issue a deficiency assessment against petitioner in
the amount of P 525,897.06 as deficiency withholding income tax
for the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968.
II. Whether or not the right of the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue to assess the deficiency withholding income tax for the
year 196,5 has prescribed. 3
Upon the facts and circumstances of the case, review is warranted.

In point is Sec. 338-A (now Sec. 327) of the Tax Code. As inserted by Republic Act
No. 6110 on August 9, 1969, it provides:
Sec. 338-A. Non-retroactivity of rulings. Any revocation,
modification, or reversal of and of the rules and regulations
promulgated in accordance with the preceding section or any of the
rulings or circulars promulgated by the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue shall not be given retroactive application if the
relocation, modification, or reversal will be prejudicial to the
taxpayers, except in the following cases: (a) where the taxpayer
deliberately mis-states or omits material facts from his return or
any document required of him by the Bureau of Internal Revenue:
(b) where the facts subsequently gathered by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue are materially different from the facts on which the ruling
is based; or (c) where the taxpayer acted in bad faith. (italics for
emphasis)
It is clear from the foregoing that rulings or circulars promulgated by the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue have no retroactive application where to so apply
them would be prejudicial to taxpayers. The prejudice to petitioner of the retroactive
application of Memorandum Circular No. 4-71 is beyond question. It was issued
only in 1971, or three years after 1968, the last year that petitioner had withheld
taxes under General Circular No. V-334. The assessment and demand on petitioner to
pay deficiency withholding income tax was also made three years after 1968 for a
period of time commencing in 1965. Petitioner was no longer in a position to
withhold taxes due from foreign corporations because it had already remitted all film
rentals and no longer had any control over them when the new Circular was issued.
And in so far as the enumerated exceptions are concerned, admittedly, petitioner
does not fall under any of them.
Respondent claims, however, that the provision on non-retroactivity is inapplicable
in the present case in that General Circular No. V-334 is a nullity because in effect, it
changed the law on the matter. The Court of Tax Appeals sustained this position
holding that: "Deductions are wholly and exclusively within the power of Congress
or the law-making body to grant, condition or deny; and where the statute imposes a
tax equal to a specified rate or percentage of the gross or entire amount received by
the taxpayer, the authority of some administrative officials to modify or change,
much less reduce, the basis or measure of the tax should not be read into law." 4
Therefore, the Tax Court concluded, petitioner did not acquire any vested right
thereunder as the same was a nullity.
The rationale behind General Circular No. V-334 was clearly stated therein,
however: "It ha(d) been determined that the tax is still imposed on income derived
from capital, or labor, or both combined, in accordance with the basic principle of
income taxation ...and that a mere return of capital or investment is not income ... ."
"A part of the receipts of a non-resident foreign film distributor derived from said

film represents, therefore, a return of investment." The Circular thus fixed the return
of capital at 50% to simplify the administrative chore of determining the portion of
the rentals covering the return of capital." 5
Were the "gross income" base clear from Sec. 24 (b), perhaps, the ratiocination of the
Tax Court could be upheld. It should be noted, however, that said Section was not
too plain and simple to understand. The fact that the issuance of the General Circular
in question was rendered necessary leads to no other conclusion than that it was not
easy of comprehension and could be subjected to different interpretations.
In fact, Republic Act No. 2343, dated June 20, 1959, supra, which was the basis of
General Circular No. V-334, was just one in a series of enactments regarding Sec. 24
(b) of the Tax Code. Republic Act No. 3825 came next on June 22, 1963 without
changing the basis but merely adding a proviso (in bold letters).
(b) Tax on foreign corporation.(1) Non-resident corporations.
There shall be levied, collected and paid for each taxable year, in
lieu of the tax imposed by the preceding paragraph, upon the
amount received by every foreign corporation not engaged in trade
or business within the Philippines, from all sources within the
Philippines, as interest, dividends, rents, salaries, wages, premiums
annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other
fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits, and
income, a tax equal to thirty per centum of such amount:
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT PREMIUMS SHALL NOT
INCLUDE REINSURANCE PREMIUMS. (double emphasis
ours).
Republic Act No. 3841, dated likewise on June 22, 1963, followed after, omitting the
proviso and inserting some words (also in bold letters).
(b) Tax on foreign corporations.(1) Non-resident corporations.
There shall be levied, collected and paid for each taxable year, in
lieu of the tax imposed by the preceding paragraph, upon the
amount received by every foreign corporation not engaged in trade
or business within the Philippines, from all sources within the
Philippines, as interest, dividends, rents, salaries, wages,
premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments,
or other fixed or determinable annual or periodical OR CASUAL
gains, profits and income, AND CAPITAL GAINS, a tax equal to
thirty per centum of such amount. 6 (double emphasis supplied)
The principle of legislative approval of administrative interpretation by re-enactment
clearly obtains in this case. It provides that "the re-enactment of a statute
substantially unchanged is persuasive indication of the adoption by Congress of a

prior executive construction. 7 Note should be taken of the fact that this case involves
not a mere opinion of the Commissioner or ruling rendered on a mere query, but a
Circular formally issued to "all internal revenue officials" by the then Commissioner
of Internal Revenue.
It was only on June 27, 1968 under Republic Act No. 5431, supra, which became the
basis of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 4-71, that Sec. 24 (b) was amended to
refer specifically to 35% of the "gross income."
This Court is not unaware of the well-entrenched principle that the Government is
never estopped from collecting taxes because of mistakes or errors on the part of its
agents. 8 In fact, utmost caution should be taken in this regard. 9 But, like other
principles of law, this also admits of exceptions in the interest of justice and fairplay.
The insertion of Sec. 338-A into the National Internal Revenue Code, as held in the
case of Tuason, Jr. vs. Lingad, 10 is indicative of legislative intention to support the
principle of good faith. In fact, in the United States, from where Sec. 24 (b) was
patterned, it has been held that the Commissioner of Collector is precluded from
adopting a position inconsistent with one previously taken where injustice would
result therefrom, 11 or where there has been a misrepresentation to the taxpayer. 12
We have also noted that in its Decision, the Court of Tax Appeals further required the
petitioner to pay interest and surcharge as provided for in Sec. 51 (e) of the Tax Code
in addition to the deficiency withholding tax of P 525,897.06. This additional
requirement is much less called for because the petitioner relied in good faith and
religiously complied with no less than a Circular issued "to all internal revenue
officials" by the highest official of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and approved by
the then Secretary of Finance. 13
With the foregoing conclusions arrived at, resolution of the issue of prescription
becomes unnecessary.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Court of Tax Appeals is hereby reversed, and the
questioned assessment set aside. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar (Acting Chairman), Fernandez, Guerrero and De Castro, * JJ., concur.