7/24/2019 Commissioner of Customs v. Manila Electric Co.

1/2

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-23623 June 30, 1977

ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, petitioner,vs.MANILA ELECTRIC COMPAN !n" COURT OF TA# APPEALS, respondents.

Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz Assistant Solicitor General Felicisimo R. Rosete and Solicitor AlejandroB. Afurong for petitioner.

Ross, Selph Salcedo, Del Rosario Bito & Misa for priate respondent.

FERNAN$O, J.:

he reversal b! respondent Court of a" #ppeals of a deter$ination b! the then #ctin% Co$$issioner ofCusto$s, the late Norberto Ro$ualde&, 'r., that private respondent Manila Electric Co$pan! (as note"e$pt fro$ the pa!$ent of the special i$port ta" under Republic #ct No. )*+ 1for ship$ent to it ofinsulatin% oil, respondent Court entertainin% the contrar! vie( 2led to this petition for revie(. hecontention pressed in support of the petition is that as a ta" e"e$ption is to be construed strictl!, thedecision of the respondent Court, (hich assu$ed that insulatin% oil can be considered as insulators $ustbe reversed and set aside. he appealed decision of respondent Court in the li%ht of applicable

authorities supplies the best refutation of such contention. It $ust be sustained.

he appealed decision 3set forth that petitioner Manila Electric Co., nor private respondent, in appealin%fro$ a deter$ination b! the then #ctin% Co$$issioner of Custo$s, no( petitioner, -clai$s that it ise"e$pt fro$ the special i$port ta" not onl! b! virtue of Section of Republic #ct No. )*+, (hiche"e$pts fro$ said ta" e/uip$ent and spare parts for use in industries, but also under Para%raph +, Part(o, of its franchise, (hich e"pressl! e"e$pts is insulators fro$ all ta"es of (hatever 0ind and nature. %Itthen $ade reference to the franchise of private respondent Manila Electric Co.1 -Par. +. he %rantee shallbe liable to pa! the sa$e ta"es upon its real estate, buildin%s, plant 2not includin% poles, (ires,transfor$ers, and insulators3, $achiner! and personal propert! as other persons are or $a! be hereafterre/uired b! la( to pa!. In consideration of Part (o of the franchise herein %ranted, to (it, the ri%ht tobuild and $aintain in the Cit! of Manila and its suburbs a plant for the conve!in% and furnishin% of electriccurrent for li%ht, heat, and po(er, and to char%e for the sa$e, the %rantee shall pa! to the Cit! of Manila

t(o and one4half per centu$ of the %ross earnin%s received fro$ the business under this franchise in thecit! and its suburbs1 ... and shall be in lieu of all ta"es and assess$ents of (hatsoever nature, and b!(hatsoever authorit! upon the privile%es, earnin%s, inco$e, franchise, and poles, (ires, transfor$ers,and insulators of the %rantee, fro$ (hich ta"es and assess$ents the %rantee is hereb! e"pressl!e"e$pted.- & It noted that the above -e"e$pts it fro$ all ta"es of (hatever nature, and b! (hateverauthorit!, (ith respect to its insulators in consideration for the pa!$ent of the percenta%e ta" on its %rossearnin%s.- 6

he /uestion then, accordin% to such decision of respondent Court is1 -Does the insulatin% oil in /uestionco$e (ithin the $eanin% of the ter$ 5insulator 56- 7hen it (ent on1 -insulatin% oils are $ineral oils of hi%hdi4electrics stren%th and hi%h flash point e$plo!ed in circuit brea0ers, s(itches, transfor$ers and otherelectric apparatus. #n oil (ith a flash point of 789 : ; and fire point of *)< : ; is considered safe. # clean,(ell4 refined oil (ill have a $ini$u$ dielectric of 77,

7/24/2019 Commissioner of Customs v. Manila Electric Co.

2/2

$aintain insulation bet(een the contacts inside the tan0 and the tan0 itself.5 ... he decision appealedfro$ not bein% in accordance (ith la(, the sa$e is hereb! reversed. Respondent is ordered to refund topetitioner the su$ of P++9.o(ever, it is e/uall! a reco%ni&ed principle that (here the provision of the la( is clear anduna$bi%uous, so that there is no occasion for the court5s see0in% the le%islative intent, the la( $ust beta0en as it is, devoid of Audicial addition or subtraction. In this ease, (e find the provision of Section )84#4(henever ata' free product is utili&ed, ... all enco$passin% to co$prehend ta"4free ra( $aterials,even if i$ported. here the la( provided no /ualification for the %rantin% of the privile%e, the court is notat libert! to suppl! an!. 1%hat is (hat (as done b! respondent Court of a" #ppeals. It sho(ed fealt! tothis e/uall! (ell. settled doctrine. It construed the statutor! provision as it is (ritten. It is precluded, in thelan%ua%e of the Republic ;lour Mills opinion, considerin% that the la( is clear and a$bi%uous, to loo0further for an! le%islative intent, as -the la( $ust be ta0en as it is, devoid of Audicial addition orsubtraction.- 1&If there is an e"tended discussion of this point, it is due solel! to the e$phasis placed onthe $atter b! petitioner.

7. Moreover, the decision of respondent Court under revie( finds support in Balas . Domingo.

16

hus1-No other conclusion is possible in vie( of the (ell4settled principle that this Court is bound b! the findin%of facts of the Court of a" #ppeals, onl! /uestions of la( bein% open to it for deter$ination. #s stated inanother decision, 5onl! errors of la(, and not rulin%s on the (ei%ht of evidence, are revie(able b! thisCourt.5 he facts then as above ascertained cannot be disturbed. In our latest decision, there is acate%orical assertion that (here the /uestion is one of fact, it is no lon%er revie(able. 17Such a doctrine isnot of li$ited application. It is a reco%nition of the (ide discretion enAo!ed b! the Court of a" #ppeals inconstruin% ta" statutes. So it (as cate%oricall! held inAlhamra !igar and !igarette Manufacturing !o. .!ommissioner of "nternal Reenue1 1'-Nor as a $atter of principle is it advisable for this Court to setaside the conclusion reached b! an a%enc! such as the Court of a" #ppeals (hich is, b! the ver! natureof its function, dedicated e"clusivel! to the stud! and consideration of ta" proble$s and has necessaril!developed an e"pertice on the subAect, unless, as did not happen here, there has been an abuse ori$provident e"ercise of its authorit!. 19hat sa$e approach (as reflected in Re(es . !ommissioner of"nternal Reenue, 20!hu $oi $orn . !ourt of )a' Appeals, 21*i *e !hemical +roducts . !ommissioner

of !ustoms, 22and asiad . !ourt of )a' Appeals. 23he Vi Ve decision has so$e relevance. here thestand of the state that the Court of a" #ppeals could ri%htfull! deter$ine that 5-priopionic %l!cine- is thesa$e as %luta$ic acid- 2%(as considered as (ell (ithin the authorit! of respondent Court. It (ould be anaffront to the sense of fairness and of Austice if in another case, respondent Court, in the e"ercise of itsdiscretionar! authorit!, after deter$inin% that insulatin% oil co$es (ithin the ter$ insulator, is not beupheld.

>ERE;ORE, the petition for revie( is dis$issed. No costs.

Barredo, Antonio and !oncepcion, -r., --., concur.

Auino, -., concurs in the result.