Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > January 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-22605 January 17, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-22605. January 17, 1968.]

CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

Tomas P. Matic, Jr. for Petitioner.

Solicitor General for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. TAXATION; SECTIONS 243 AND 246 OF TAX CODE, DISTINGUISHED NATURE OF CEMENT QUA CEMENT, AS ENVISAGED BY TAX LAW; BASIS OF AD VALOREM TAX OF 1 1/2 PER CENTUM, STATED. — The issue concerns the correct basis of the 1 1/2% ad valorem tax under Sec. 243 in connection with Sec. 246 of the Tax Code when made to apply to cement. Sec. 243 levies "on the actual market value of the annual gross output of the minerals or mineral products extracted or produced from all mineral lands, not covered by lease, an ad valorem tax, payable to the Collector of Internal Revenue, in the amount of one and one-half per centum of the value of said output" ; while Section 246 defines the term "mineral product" as "things produced by the lessee, concessionaire, or owner of mineral lands, at least eighty per cent of which things must be minerals extracted by such lessee, concessionaire or owner of mineral lands." As earlier held, cement qua cement is no longer a mineral product in the condition as envisaged by the Tax law, hence, Sec. 243 of the Tax Code cannot be directly applied to cement, since what is taxable thereunder are minerals constituting cement, i.e. limestone, silica and shale. The correct basis of the ad valorem tax is, therefore, the market value of the quarried raw materials.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; AD VALOREM TAX, BASED ON "BIN COST", APPLIED; EQUITIES OF THE CASE IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER, RULED. — The stand of the petitioner before the Tax Court was the correct basis namely that 1 1/2% ad valorem tax should be based on the market value of the quarried raw materials. But petitioner, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, changed that stand on appeal. In its alternative prayer, however, petitioner asked that the ad valorem tax be based on the "bin cost" i.e. the cost of production minus cost of cement bags, in which event it would be entitled to a refund of P42,810.11. The equities of the case weigh more heavily on petitioner’s side than on the State’s, wherefore, its claim for refund based at least on the "bin cost" of cement should be allowed.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


Petitioner Cebu Portland Cement Co., is a government owned and controlled corporation engaged in the making of APO portland cement. Admittedly, cement is at least 80% composed of limestone, silica and shale — raw materials which petitioner quarries from its own mineral lands.

For the period from July 1, 1959 to December 31, 1960, petitioner realized from its gross sales P13,924,415.80. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue then levied and collected from petitioner P190,115.24 as ad valorem tax under Sec. 243 of the Tax Code using as basis therefor the amount of the gross sales minus the cost of cement bags, which is P1,188,248.56.

Petitioner paid the P190,115.24 assessment under protest and on May 8, 1961, sought refund for P174,032.85 on the theory that the ad valorem tax should be based on the cost of the raw materials, which is P1,072,159.28. On June 29, 1961, without awaiting the resolution of its claim for refund, petitioner sought its redress in the Court of Tax Appeals which, on February 8, 1964, denied the refund.

Hence, the present recourse.

The issue tendered concerns the correct basis of the 1-1/2% ad valorem tax under Sec. 243, in connection with Sec. 246, of the Tax Code when made to apply on cement. 1 The State says it is the gross selling price of cement qua cement. Petitioner insists that it cannot be the gross selling price.

The parties here have assumed that cement is a mineral product within the purview of Sec. 243 of the Tax Code. Our view is otherwise. As we expressed it in Cebu Portland Cement Co. v. Commissioner, L-18649, February 27, 1965, cement qua cement is no longer a mineral product in the condition envisaged by the Tax law. Very recently We reiterated and reaffirmed this stand thru Justice J.B.L. Reyes when We denied a plea to reconsider the original decision rendered therein. 2 It results that Sec. 243 of the Tax Code cannot be applied directly to cement. What is taxable thereunder are the minerals constituting cement, i.e., limestone, silica and shale. 3 Hence, the correct basis of the 1 1/2% ad valorem tax is the market value of the quarried raw materials.

This was petitioner’s stand before the Tax Court. But as the Solicitor General points out, and the records bear him out, 4 petitioner abandoned that here. At the most, petitioner in its alternative prayer here, asks that the ad valorem tax be based on the "bin cost," 5 of cement, in which case it would be entitled to a refund in the sum of P42,810.11.

The equities of the case weigh more heavily on petitioner’s side than on the State’s. Its claim for refund, based at least on the "bin cost" of cement, should be granted.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is, as it is hereby, reversed and set aside. Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue must refund the sum of P42,810.11 to petitioner Cebu Portland Cement Co. as prayed for in the petition. No costs. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Sec. 243 levies "on the actual market value of the annual gross output of the minerals or mineral products extracted or produced from all mineral lands, not covered by lease, an ad valorem, tax, payable to the Collector of Internal Revenue, in the amount of one and one- half per centum for the value of said output" while Sec. 246 defines the term "mineral product" as "things produced by the lessee, concessionaire, or owner of mineral lands, at least eighty per cent of which things must be minerals extracted by such lessee, concessionaire, or owner of mineral lands." clubjuris

2. Cebu Portland Cement v. Commissioner, L-18649, Dec. 29, 1967.

3. Gypsum, though also a constituent of cement, cannot be included since it is imported from abroad.

4. See Rollo, pp. 6-8; Petitioner’s Brief, pp. 16-20.

5. Cost of production minus cost of cement bags.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



January-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23542 January 2, 1968 - JUANA T. VDA. DE RACHO v. MUNICIPALITY OF ILAGAN

  • G.R. No. L-23988 January 7, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LEONARDO S. VILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24922 January 2, 1968 - MELECIO DOREGO, ET AL. v. ARISTON PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-24108 January 3, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24190 January 8, 1968 - RAFAEL FALCOTELO, ET AL. v. RESTITUTO GALI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24432 January 12, 1968 - NAZARIO EQUIZABAL v. APOLONIO G. MALENIZA

  • G.R. No. L-22294 January 12, 1968 - DIONISIA PARAMI VDA. DE CABASAG v. AMADOR P. SU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22991 January 16, 1968 - BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23293 January 16, 1968 - LUIS R. AYO, JR. v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24480 January 16, 1968 - LUCRECIO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-22794 January 16, 1968 - RUFO QUEMUEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22018 January 17, 1968 - APOLONIO GALOFA v. NEE BON SING

  • G.R. No. L-22081 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTOS M. CABANERO

  • G.R. No. L-22605 January 17, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-23690 January 17, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. L-24230 January 17, 1968 - EUGENIA TORNILLA v. TEODORICA FUENTESPINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24434 January 17, 1968 - PEDRO REGANON, ET AL. v. RUFINO IMPERIAL

  • G.R. No. L-28459 January 17, 1968 - RAFAEL FALCOTELO, ET AL. v. MACARIO ASISTIO

  • G.R. No. L-22518 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ATENCIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23707 January 17, 1968 - JOSE A.V. CORPUS v. FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA

  • G.R. No. L-26103 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMER ESTRADA

  • G.R. No. L-19255 January 18, 1968 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-24707 January 18, 1968 - JOSE S. CAPISTRANO v. JUAN BOGAR

  • G.R. No. L-24946 January 18, 1968 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-23116 January 24, 1968 - IN RE: ANTONIO JAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24287 January 24, 1968 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION COMPANY, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-22985 January 24, 1968 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. GREGORIO CAGUIMBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-18546 & L-18547 January 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRUDENCIO OPINIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19752 January 29, 1968 - LAND SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. AGUSTIN CARLOS

  • G.R. No. L-23555 January 29, 1968 - FLOREÑA TINAGAN v. VALERIO V. ROVIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22468 January 29, 1968 - PUAHAY LAO v. DIMTOY SUAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24607 January 29, 1968 - TOMAS TRIA TIRONA v. CITY TREASURER OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-24795 January 29, 1968 - PEDRO JIMENEA v. ROMEO G. GUANZON, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20449 January 29, 1968 - ESPERANZA FABIAN, ET AL. v. SILBINA FABIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28415 January 29, 1968 - ESTRELLO T. ONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23012 January 29, 1968 - MIGUEL CUENCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23052 January 29, 1968 - CITY OF MANILA v. GENERO M. TEOTICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28518 January 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO G. PADERNA

  • G.R. No. L-18971 January 29, 1968 - IN RE: ABUNDIO ROTAQUIO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21718 January 29, 1968 - MILAGROS F. VDA. DE FORTEZA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28392 January 29, 1968 - JOSE C. AQUINO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27268 January 29, 1968 - JUANITA JUAN-MARCELO, ET AL. v. GO KIM PAH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22145 January 30, 1968 - A. M. RAYMUNDO & CO. v. BENITO SYMACO

  • G.R. No. L-22686 January 30, 1968 - BERNARDO JOCSON, ET AL. v. REDENCION GLORIOSO

  • G.R. No. L-24073 January 30, 1968 - PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS v. REGINA GALANG VDA. DE ESPELETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27583 January 30, 1968 - MARGARITO J. LOFRANCO v. JESUS JIMENEZ, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-19565 January 30, 1968 - ESTRELLA DE LA CRUZ v. SEVERINO DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-20316 January 30, 1968 - LEONCIA CABRERA DE CHUATOCO v. GREGORIO ARAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21855 January 30, 1968 - IN RE: ANDRES SINGSON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22973 January 30, 1968 - MAMBULAO LUMBER COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22215 January 30, 1968 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. PEDRO LABAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23702 January 30, 1968 - MARIA VILLAFLOR v. ARTURO REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23965 January 30, 1968 - FLOREÑA TINAGAN v. JOSE PERLAS, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-21423 January 31, 1968 - GO KIONG OCHURA, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23424 January 31, 1968 - LOURDES ARCUINO, ET AL. v. RUFINA APARIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22968 January 31, 1968 - BENEDICTO BALUYOT, ET AL. v. EULOGIO E. VENEGAS

  • G.R. No. L-24859 January 31, 1968 - PABLO R. AQUINO v. GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-25083 January 31, 1968 - JUSTINO QUETULIO, ET AL. v. NENA Q. DE LA CUESTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20387 January 31, 1968 - JESUS P. MORFE v. AMELITO R. MUTUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23170 January 31, 1968 - ALBINA DE LOS SANTOS v. ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23279 January 31, 1968 - ALEJANDRA CUARTO v. ESTELITA DE LUNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23980 January 31, 1968 - JULIA SAN BUENAVENTURA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25472 January 31, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ANGELA PURUGANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24528 January 31, 1968 - DOMINGO T. LAO v. JOSE MOYA

  • G.R. No. L-22061 January 31, 1968 - DALMACIO URTULA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27776 January 31, 1968 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-28476 January 31, 1968 - ALEJANDRO REYES v. ANATALIO REYES, ET AL.