Eventually in the herein assailed decision dated decision dated

Eventually in the herein assailed decision dated

This preview shows page 6 - 8 out of 11 pages.

Eventually, in the herein assailed decision dated July 23, 2001, decision dated July 23, 2001, 9 the trial court dismissed PLDT's petition, thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition should be, as it is hereby DISMISSED. No costs. SO ORDERED. Therefrom, PLDT came to this Court via the present recourse, imputing the following errors on the part of the trial court: 5.01.a. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN SUSTAINING RESPONDENTS' POSITION THAT SECTION 137 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH, IN RELATION TO SECTION 151 THEREOF, ALLOWS RESPONDENT CITY TO IMPOSE THE FRANCHISE TAX, IS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. 5.01.b. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT UNDER PETITIONER'S FRANCHISE (REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7082), AS AMENDED AND EXPANDED BY SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7925 (PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY ACT), TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FRANCHISES OF GLOBE TELECOM, INC., (GLOBE) (REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7229) AND SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (SMART) (REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7294), WHICH WERE ENACTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, NO FRANCHISE TAXES MAY BE IMPOSED ON PETITIONER BY RESPONDENT CITY. 5.01.c. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT TO THE RULING OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, THROUGH ITS BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE, THAT PETITIONER IS EXEMPT FROM THE PAYMENT OF FRANCHISE AND BUSINESS TAXES IMPOSABLE BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. 5.01.d. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION BELOW. As we see it, the only question which commends itself for our resolution is, whether or not Section 23 of Rep. Act No. 7925, also called the "most-favored-treatment" clause, operates to exempt petitioner PLDT from the payment of franchise tax imposed by the respondent City of Bacolod. Contrary to petitioner's claim, the issue thus posed is not one of "Crst impression" insofar as this Court is concerned. For sure, this is not the Crst time for petitioner PLDT to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court on the same question, albeit involving another city. In PLDT vs. City of Davao , 10 10 this Court has had the occasion to interpret Section 23 of Rep. Act No. 7925. There, we ruled that Section 23 does not operate to exempt PLDT from the payment of franchise tax imposed upon it by the City of Davao: CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Image of page 6
In sum, it does not appear that, in approving §23 of R.A. No. 7925, Congress intended it to operate as a blanket tax exemption to all telecommunications entities. Applying the rule of strict construction of laws granting tax exemptions and the rule that doubts should be resolved in favor of municipal corporations in interpreting statutory provisions on municipal taxing powers, we hold that §23 of R.A. No. 7925 cannot be considered as having amended petitioner's franchise so as to entitle it to exemption from the imposition of local franchise taxes. Consequently, we hold that petitioner is liable to pay local franchise taxes in the amount of P3,681,985.72 for the period covering the Crst to the fourth quarter of 1999 and that it is not entitled to a refund of taxes paid by it for the period covering the first to the third quarter of 1998.
Image of page 7
Image of page 8

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 11 pages?

  • Fall '19

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture