COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COMMISSIONER OF

CUSTOMS, Petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Respondent.

G.R. Nos. 212536-37

August 27, 2014

VELASCO, JR., J.:

FACTS:
By virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1590 (PD 1590) a franchise to operate air
transport services domestically and internationally was granted to Philippine Airlines
(PAL).
Under Section 13 of such law PAL, during the lifetime of its franchise, PAL shall
pay the government either basic corporate income tax or franchise tax based on
revenues and/or the rate defined in the provision, whichever is lower and the taxes thus
paid under either scheme shall be in lieu of all other taxes, duties and other fees.
However after Republic Act No. 9334 (RA 9334) took effect on January 1, 2005
which amended Sec. 131 of the NIRC, the latter was amended to mean that provision of
any special or general law to the contrary notwithstanding, the importation of cigarettes,
distilled spirits, fermented liquors and wines, even if destined for tax and duty-free
shops, shall be subject to all applicable taxes, duties, charges, including excise taxes
due thereon.
PAL was assessed excise taxes on its February and March 2007 importation of
cigarettes and alcoholic drinks for its commissary supplies used in its international
flights. PAL paid the amounts due under protest. Subsequently PAL filed for a refund.

ISSUE:
Whether section 13 of PD 1590 is effectively repealed by the amendment
introduced by RA 9334 as to remove the exception given to PAL in paying taxes other
than income tax or franchise tax.

RULING:
No.

It is a basic principle of statutory construction that a later law, general in terms

and not expressly repealing or amending a prior special law, will not ordinarily affect the
special provisions of such earlier statute. So it must be here. PD 1590 is a special law,
which governs the franchise of PAL. Between the provisions under PD 1590 as against
the provisions under the NIRC of 1997, as amended by 9334, which is a general law,
the former necessary prevails.
PALs franchise grants it an exemption from both direct and indirect taxes on its
purchase of petroleum products. Section 13 thereof reads:
SEC. 13. In consideration of the franchise and rights hereby granted, the grantee
[PAL] shall pay to the Philippine Government during the life of this franchise whichever
of subsections (a) and (b) hereunder will result in a lower tax:
(a) The basic corporate income tax based on the grantees annual net taxable
income computed in accordance with the provisions of the National Internal
Revenue Code; or
(b) A franchise tax of two per cent (2%) of the gross revenues derived by the
grantee from all sources, without distinction as to transport or non-transport
operations; provided, that with respect to international air-transport service, only
the gross passenger, mail, and freight revenues from its outgoing flights shall be
subject to this tax.
The tax paid by the grantee under either of the above alternatives shall be in lieu
of all other taxes, duties, royalties, registration, license, and other fees and charges of
any kind, nature, or description, imposed, levied, established, assessed, or collected
Based on the above-cited provision, PALs payment of either the basic corporate
income tax or franchise tax, whichever is lower, shall be in lieu of all other taxes, duties,
royalties, registration, license, and other fees and charges, except only real property
tax.
The phrase "in lieu of all other taxes" includes but is not limited to taxes that are
"directly due from or imposable upon the purchaser or the seller, producer,
manufacturer, or importer of said petroleum products but are billed or passed on the
grantee either as part of the price or cost thereof or by mutual agreement or other
arrangement."
In other words, in view of PALs payment of either the basic corporate income tax
or franchise tax, whichever is lower, PAL is exempt from paying: (a) taxes directly due
from or imposable upon it as the purchaser of the subject petroleum products; and (b)

the cost of the taxes billed or passed on to it by the seller, producer, manufacturer, or
importer of the said products either as part of the purchase price or by mutual
agreement or other arrangement. Therefore, given the foregoing direct and indirect tax
exemptions under its franchise, and applying the principles as above-discussed, PAL is
endowed with the legal standing to file the subject tax refund claim, notwithstanding the
fact that it is not the statutory taxpayer as contemplated by law.

PHILIPPINE BRITISH ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF

THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the BUREAU OF CUSTOMS (BOC), Respondent.
G.R. No. 185588

February 2, 2010

VELASCO, JR., J.:

FACTS:
Petitioner Philippine British Assurance Company, Inc. is an insurance company,
it issues customs bonds to its clients in favor of the BOC. These bonds secure the
release of imported goods in order that the goods may be released from the BOC
without prior payment of the corresponding customs duties and taxes
Republic, represented by the BOC, filed a Complaint dated December 3, 2003
against petitioner for Collection of Money with Damages before the Regional Trial Court.
The latter ruled in favor of defendant. On appeal the CA dismissed the case for lack of
jurisdiction.

ISSUE:
Whether jurisdiction lies with the Court of Tax Appeals because the instant case
is a tax collection case.

RULING:
No.
As petitioner correctly points out, an action to collect on a bond used to secure
the payment of taxes is not a tax collection case, but rather a simple case for
enforcement of a contractual liability.
As soon as the bond was executed, the taxpayer assumed a second and entirely
distinct obligation, and became subject to a new and entirely different kind of liability.
The new liability was voluntary and contractual. It was in form a direct and primary
obligation, not to pay a tax, but to pay the sum of money due, defeasible only upon
payment by the tax-payer of a certain amount, to be fixed by subsequent action of the
Commissioner.

The present actions by the government are for the forfeiture of the bonds in
question. Although the subject matter of said bonds are internal revenue taxes, it cannot
be denied that upon the execution of said bonds, the tax-payer, as principal and the
bondsman, as surety, assumed a new and entirely distinct obligation and became
subject to an entirely different kind of liability.1
Verily, the instant case is not a tax collection case; hence, the CA has jurisdiction
over the case. BOC instituted a complaint against petitioner for collection of money,
decidedly not a tax collection case, before the trial court. OCs actions reveal its position
that indeed the case was not a tax collection case but an action for the enforcement of a
contractual obligation.

1 Republic of the Philippines v. Xavier Gun Trading