COMMISSION ON INTERNAL REVENUE vs.

ALGUE

FACTS:

The Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company had earlier appointed Algue Inc., as its agent,
authorizing it to sell its land, factories and oil manufacturing process. As such, the corporation worked for
the formation of the Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation, until they were able to purchase the PSEDC
properties. For this sale, Algue Inc., received as agent a commission of P126, 000.00, and it was from this
commission that the P75, 000.00 promotional fees were paid to Alberto Guevara, Jr., Eduardo Guevara,
Isabel Guevara, Edith, O'Farell, and Pablo Sanchez.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue contends that the claimed deduction is not allowed because it
was not an ordinary reasonable or necessary business expense. The Court of Tax Appeals had seen it
differently. Agreeing with Algue Inc., it held that the said amount had been legitimately paid by the
private respondent for actual services rendered. The payment was in the form of promotional fees.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Collector of Internal Revenue correctly disallowed the P75,000.00 deduction
claimed by private respondent Algue Inc., as legitimate business expenses in its income tax returns.

RULING:

No, The Supreme Court agrees with the respondent court that the amount of the promotional fees
was not excessive. The P75,000.00 was 60% of the total commission. This was a reasonable proportion,
considering that it was the payees who did practically everything, from the formation of the Vegetable Oil
Investment Corporation to the actual purchase by it of the Sugar Estate properties. The claimed deduction
by the private respondent was permitted under the Internal Revenue Code and should therefore not have
been disallowed by the petitioner.

It is true that taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without
unnecessary hindrance. On the other hand, such collection should be made in accordance with law as any
arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself. It is therefore necessary to reconcile the
apparently conflicting interests of the authorities and the taxpayers so that the real purpose of taxation,
which is the promotion of the common good, may be achieved. 

It is said that taxes are what we pay for a civilized society. Without taxes, the government would
be paralyzed for lack of the motive power to activate and operate it. Hence, despite the natural reluctance
to surrender part of one's hard-earned income to the taxing authorities, every person who is able to must
contribute his share in the running of the government. The government, for its part, is expected to
respond in the form of tangible and intagible benefits intended to improve the lives of the people and
enhance their moral and material values. This symbiotic relationship is the rationale of taxation and
should dispel the erroneous notion that it is an arbitrary method of exaction by those in the seat of power.
ANGELES CITY vs ANGELES ELECTRIC CORP
622 SCRA 43

FACTS:

Angeles Electric Corporation (AEC) was granted a legislative franchise under RA 4079 to
construct, maintain and operate an electric light, heat, and power system for the purpose of generating
and distributing electric light, heat, and power for sale in Angeles City. Pursuant to Section 3-A thereof,
AEC’s payment of franchise tax for gross earnings from electric current sold was in lieu of all taxes, fees
and assessments.

However, PD 551 came about and reduced the franchise tax of electric franchise holders to 2% of
their gross receipts from the sale of electric current and from transactions incident to the generation,
distribution and sale of electric current.

When RA 7160 (Local Government Code) was passed into law, it imposed tax on businesses
enjoying franchise, and in accordance, the Sangguniang Panlunsod of Angeles City enacted Tax Ordinance
No. 33, S-93, otherwise known as the Revised Revenue Code of Angeles City (RRCAC). A petition was
then filed with the Sangguniang Panlunsod by Metro Angeles Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Inc.
(MACCI) of which AEC is a member, seeking the reduction of the tax rates and a review of the provisions
of the RRCAC.

The Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) issued a First Indorsement to the City
Treasurer of Angeles City instructing it to make representations with the Sangguniang Panlunsod for the
appropriate amendment of the RRCAC in order to ensure compliance with the provisions of the LGC.

Thereafter, AEC paid the local franchise tax to the Office of the City Treasurer on a quarterly
basis, in addition to the national franchise tax it pays every quarter to the BIR.

The City Treasurer denied AEC’s protest that it was exempt from paying local business tax, the
payment of franchise tax on business resulted to double taxation, the assessment period has already
prescribed, and the assessment and collection of taxes under RRCAC cannot be made retroactive. The City
Treasurer then levied on the real properties of AEC prompting AEC to file with the RTC an Urgent Motion
for Issuance of a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Local Government Code prohibits an injunction enjoining the collection of
taxes.

RULING:

No. The Local Government Code does not specifically prohibit an injunction enjoining the
collection of taxes. The prohibition of a writ of injunction to enjoin the collection of taxes applies only to
national internal revenue taxes, and not to local taxes. Unlike the NIRC, the Local Tax Code does not
contain any specific provision prohibiting courts from enjoining the collection of local taxes.

Taxes, being the lifeblood of the government should be collected promptly, without necessary
hindrance or delay. The National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (NIRC) expressly provides that no court
shall have the authority to grant an injunction to restrain the collection of any national internal revenue
tax, fee or charge imposed by the code. An exception to this rule obtains only when in the opinion of the
Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), the collection thereof may jeopardize the interest of the government and/or
the taxpayer.
GEROCHI vs. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
527 SCRA 696

Petitioners Romeo P. Gerochi, Katulong ng Bayan, and Environmentalist Consumers Network,

Inc. sought to declare Section 34 of Republic Act 9136 otherwise known as the Electric Power Industry
Reform Act (EPIRA) as unconstitutional, for being an undue delegation of the power of taxation. Section
34 provides for the imposition of a “Universal Charge” to all electricity end users, which would serve as
payment for government debts, missionary electrification, equalization of taxes and royalties applied to
renewable energy and imported energy, environmental charge and for a charge to account for all forms of
cross subsidies for a period not exceeding three years. Petitioners contend that the Universal Charge has
the characteristics of a tax and is collected to fund the operations of the NPC.

Respondents Department of Energy (DOE), ERC, and NPC, through the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), share the same view that the Universal Charge is not a tax because it is levied for a specific
regulatory purpose, which is to ensure the viability of the country's electric power industry, and is,
therefore, an exaction in the exercise of the State's police power.

ISSUE:

Whether or not, the Universal Charge imposed under Sec. 34 of the EPIRA is a tax.

RULING:

No. The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is unlimited in its range, acknowledging in
its very nature no limits, so that security against its abuse is to be found only in the responsibility of the
legislature which imposes the tax on the constituency that is to pay it. It is based on the principle that
taxes are the lifeblood of the government, and their prompt and certain availability is an imperious need.
Thus, the theory behind the exercise of the power to tax emanates from necessity; without taxes,
government cannot fulfill its mandate of promoting the general welfare and well-being of the people.

On the other hand, police power is the power of the state to promote public welfare by restraining
and regulating the use of liberty and property. It is the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most
demanding of the three fundamental powers of the State. The justification is found in the Latin maxims
salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law) and sic utere tuo ut alienum
non laedas (so use your property as not to injure the property of others). As an inherent attribute of
sovereignty which virtually extends to all public needs, police power grants a wide panoply of instruments
through which the State, as parens patriae, gives effect to a host of its regulatory powers. We have held
that the power to "regulate" means the power to protect, foster, promote, preserve, and control, with due
regard for the interests, first and foremost, of the public, then of the utility and of its patrons.

The conservative and pivotal distinction between these two powers rests in the purpose for which
the charge is made. If generation of revenue is the primary purpose and regulation is merely incidental,
the imposition is a tax; but if regulation is the primary purpose, the fact that revenue is incidentally raised
does not make the imposition a tax.

In exacting the assailed Universal Charge through Sec. 34 of the EPIRA, the State's police power,
particularly its regulatory dimension, is invoked. Such can be deduced from Sec. 34 which enumerates the
purposes for which the Universal Charge is imposed and which can be amply discerned as regulatory in
character. From the aforementioned purposes, it can be gleaned that the assailed Universal Charge is not
a tax, but an exaction in the exercise of the State's police power. Public welfare is surely promoted.