UNILIVER PHILIPPINES, INC. v. THE TREASURER OF THE CITY OF MANILA

REPU DLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES J T -. AX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FJRST DIVISION *********** UNILEVER PHI LIPPINES, JNC., C.T.A. AC NO. 41 P etition er, (Civil Case No . 05- 115701) -versus- Membe rs: THE TREASURER OJ~' HE CITY OF ACOSTA, P.J. MANILA, BAUTISTA, and CASANOVA, JJ,. Respondent. Promulgated: X --------------------------------------------------------- DECISION ACOSTA, PJ. : Before Us JS an upp~a l by Petition for Review from th e Decision of the Regional Trial Co urt of Man ila dated May 25, 2007, dismiss ing petni oner' s Petition for Refund, and the August 3 1, 2007 Order denying petiti oner's Motio n for Reconsiderati on . Petitioner, Unil ever Philippines, Inc., is a domestic corporati on dul y organized under the laws of the Phili ppines with principal office address a t 135 1 United Nations Avenue, Manila. R espondent is the I reasure r of the City of Manila (City), and is be ing sued in such capacity, tasked WJt!J Lhc impl ementa ti on of the M anila Revenue Code, as amended, as well as the colkction and assessment of business taxes, license tees, and

Decision C.T.A. A.C. No. 4 1 Page2 permit fees within the Uty. Res pondent may be served with s ummons and other court processes through the City Legal Ofticer of Manila at Manil a City Hall. On January 20, 2UOJ, pdi tioner paid taxes under both Sections 14 and 2 1 of the Manila Revenue Code (fviRC), as ame nded, corres ponding to the fi rst quarter of 2003 . Section 14 of th~ lVI RC, as amended, tmposes tax on manufa cturers, assemblers and other proces~ors, while Sec ti on 2 1 thereof deal s with tax on business subject to the excise, valu~-aJded or percentage taxes und er the Nationa l Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of llJlJ7. On January 5, 20lb, pe titi oner fil ed a lette r' claiming lo r the re fund of Pl3 ,724,446.00, reprcscnti11g business taxes paid under Section 2 1 or the MRC, as amended.2 Petitioner asserts that it is no t questi oning the validity or Secti on 2 1 of the said MRC; nonetheless, being taxed under both Sections 14 and 2 1 of the same Code constitutes double taxati on proh ibited by law. For failure of respondent to act on petiti oner' s claim for refund , petitioner filed a Petition for Ref'und beliJ re the Regional Trial Co urt (RTC) of Ma ni la on January 19, 2005. 3 O n th ~ other hand , respondent filed her Answer on May 17, 2005.4 During the pre-trial con ference, it was agreed upon that the so le issue to be resolved by the RTC is whether pe titio ner is entitl ed to a refund or business taxes paid under Section 2 1 of the fvl P ', as amended, for the first quarter of 200.J . The fac t of payment, the claim for reJund, the deni al of th e claim, and the capac ity of petitioner to sue and be sued were a ll admitted.5 1 Annex "D" of the Petition tor Rev iew r~ 2 Annex "C" ofthe Petiti on for Review 3 Annex "E" of the Petiti on fo r Rev iew 4 Page 3 of Annex "A" 5 Page 7 of Annex "A"

Decision C.T.A. A.C. No. 41 Page 3 On May 25, 200 7, ll1 e RTC rendered a Dec ision dismi ssing petitioner' s claim for refund. The D ecision partly reads as fo llows: " It is evident that the enforcement of Section 2 1 of Manila's Revenue Code against Unilevcr does not constitute double taxa tion in view of the taxes collected by the City of Man ila under Section 14 of the same Code. Scc.:tion 2 1 is not a tax on the business per se; rather, it is a tax on person s a vwling or the goods and services of th e business. Upon cardul examination of the Revenue Code of Manila, it will be deduced that Section 2 1 imposes indirect tax upon end users of the goods and servi ce:, of the manufacturing business of Unilever. The tax under Section 2 ts in the concept of an indirect tax in view of the modifying paragraph �the tax shall be payable by the person paying for the services rendered and sha ll be paid to the person rendering the services rendered and shall be paid to the person renderin g the services who is required to col kcL and pay the tax within twenty (20) days aJle r the end of each qu<t1 ter. ' XXX XXX XXX The tax imposed upon plaintiffunder Section 14 is a tax o n the manufacturing bus iness. It is a direct tax which is demanded from plaintiff, burdem:d to pay the same, in contrast to Section 2 1 which is in the concept of an indirect tax. XXX XXX XXX In short, there is no double taxation, si nce there is an absence on the element oftax1ng twice on the same activity or subj ect mauer." Petitioner fil ed a Motion for Reconsideration on January 19, 2007 but was denied by the RTC in an Order dated A ug ust 31, 2007. 6 Hence, the instant Petition for Rev iew bein g filed on October I 0, 2007 praying that We: 1. Give due course to the Peti tion; 2. After due consideration, re nder judgment reversing and settin g aside the May 25, Decis ion and the A ug ust 3 1, 2007 Order or the Regional Trial 'oun ami: 6 Annex "B" of the Petition tor Revww . (} ~

Decision C.T.A. A.C. No. 41 Page4 (a .) U.:dw111 g Ll lilt petitioner is not liable lor bus m~s s taxes under Section 2 1 of the MRC having alrew..ly pa id business taxes under Section 14 thereof; and (b.) Rdt111dmg to petitioner taxes paid thereunder Cor the first quarter of the year 2003 in the amo unt of p 13, 72 -~ , 446. 00. The instant Petition ra ised the sole ground: The en forcement of Section 21 of the City of Manila's Revenue Cod e agai 1st petitio ner constitutes dou ble <xation prohibited by law in v iew of taxes collected by the City and paid by petitioner undet� Sectio 4 of the Revenue Code. Thus, U e taxes collected by res pondet t being claimed in the proceedings a <JUO in the amount of P13,72..t,446.00 should be immediately refunded. In a Resolution d a t~d November 14, 2007, respondent was ord ered to file a Comment to the instant Peti tio n fo r Review. However, respondent fa iled to fi le the same. On January 15, 200 H, the instant Petition for Review was given due course sans respondent's Comment. Tht: parti es were likewise ordered to fil e their respective Memoranda. Respondent and petiti oner fil ed their Memoranda on February 2 1, 2008 and February 22,2008 7 respectively. , The case was subm ilted for Decision in a Reso lution dated March 17, 2008. Petitioner maintains tha t Section 14 of the MRC, as amended, takes root in Section 143(a) of the Local Govermnent Code of 199 1 (LGC), and Section 2 1 of the MRC, as amended, find s bas is in Section 143(h) of the LGC. It claims that the City may impose taxes on business subject to the excise, value-added and percentage taxes, as allowed in Section 143(h) or the LGC. But the City cannot impose the same tax on a business already subj ect to taxes under Section 143(a) of the LGC. This is clearl y expressed in Section 143(h) in the proviso, "not otherwise sp ecified in the preceding 7 Posted on February 18, 2008.

Decision C.T.A. A.C. No. 41 Page 5 paragraphs." Applied to tl1~ 1\tii<.C, as amended, the City camwt e nlorce Sectio n 21 over businesses alread y subJ~cl to business taxes und er Section 14. Petitioner further av(;rs that it is a manufacturer paying local ta>..es pursuant to Section 14, thus, the same sa le of ma nufactured goods can no longer be subject to business tax tmder Sectiu11 2 1. Do ing so constitutes a direct double taxation prohibited by law, as it violates the uniformity ru le in taxation and equal protection. For her part, respondent argues in her Memo randum that there is no direct double taxation. On the busis or the phrase "the tax shall be payable by the person paying for the services 1 enJered and shall be paid to the person rendering the services who is required to r.:ollet.:l and pay the taxes xxxx" found in Section 21 of the MRC, as amended, the tax in1posecl is in the concept of indirect tax upon end- users of the goods and services of the business, not the establishment itself. The tax imposed under Section 21 has alreaJy been co ll ected by petitioner (the payor) from the end users (the payee) the sat 1c ha ving been added by p etitioner to the basic prices of its goods or services. And , petitioner is merely a withholding agent, charged with the obligation to remit the tax co ll ected to the City. Respondent continues tl1at Section 14, on the other hand , im poses tax on the business itself. Thereiore, there are in esse two (2) objects of taxation in the dual facet of petitioner's business operations. There is no taxation on the same pro perty or object by the same taxing aut! ority, and the imposition under Sectiot s 14 and 21 are not of the same kind and dwracter, to infringe upon the constitutional injunction against double taxation. We find the insLant Peltlion for Review meri torio us. Foremo~l, the power of the City of Manil a to impose business tax finds basis in Section 143 of the LGC in relation to Section 15 ] 0 r Llle same Code, viz : "SECTION 15 1. Scope of Taxing Powers. - Except as otherwise provided in this Code, the city, may levy taxes, fee s, and charges which the prov11tcc or mun icipality may impose: xxx J.. f~l ,::)-

Decision C.T.A. A.C. No. 41 Page 6 SEC'llUN I-'1:\. Tax on Uusiness . - T he mu ni cipallly may impose taxes on th e tollowing bus inesses: (a) On mWil!/uc.:turers, assemblers, repackers, proce...,-sors, brewers, dist illers, ret:t!fiers, and compounders of liq uors, dis tilled spirits, and wine::, ur 11/alll!/acturers of any article of commerce of whatever kind or Jumtre, 111 accordance with the fo llowing schedule: XXX XXX XXX (b) On wholesalers, di stributors, or dealers in any article of commerce of w hatt::ver ki11 d or nature in accordance with the lo ll owing s c h e d u l e: XXX XXX XXX (c) On exponers, and o n manufacturers, mill ers, producers, wholesalers, d is tnbulors, dealers or retail ers of essenti a l commod iti es enwnerated hereunder at a rate not exceeding one-ha lf (I /2 ) o f" the rates prescribed under subsecti ons (a), (b) and (d) of thi s Section: XXX XXX XXX (d) On reta1let s; XXX XXX XXX (e) On contractors and other independent contractors, m accordance with the Jollowing schedul e; XXX XXX XXX (f) On banks ami other Jinancial institutions, at a ra te no t exceeding fi fty percent (5 0%) of one percent (1 %) on the gross receipts of the preceding calendar year deri ved from interest, commissions and disco un ts from lending activities, income ii�om financial leasing, diviJends, rentals on property, insurance prem ium. (g) On peddlers engaged in the sale of any merchand ise or article of commerce, at a rate no t exceed ing F ifty pesos (PSO.<lO) per peddler annua ll y. (h) On any business, not otherwise ::,pecified in the preceding paragraphs, which the sanggunian concerned may deem proper to tax: Provided, That 011 uny business su~ject to the excise, value-added or percentage Lax t111der the National internal Revenue Code, as amended, the rate uj tux shall not exceed two percent (2%) uf gross sales or receipts 1~/ the pre~.:eding calendar year. .10 6

Decision C.T.A. A.C. No. 41 Page 7 or The swtggwlWll co ncerned may pn.:scribe a ~clh~dule graduated tax rates L>ut in no case to exceed the rates presc ribed herein." (Emphasis supplied.) The aforequ oteJ ~ed iun 143 enumerates the entities subject to business tax. Sub-section (h) is un clc rs luud to be a ''catch-all" provis ion as indicated on the phrase "any business." The pltra::>e, howe er, is qu alifi ed by the provi so "11ol otherwise specified in the preceding paragraphs." It means that any business nol me ntioned in the preceding paragraph s, thai is, sub-sections �'a" to "g", can be taxed und er sub- section (h). Verily, the intent is to au thori ze Local Governments to impose business tax under either one of th e sub-sections but not under both or a ll , ultima tely to avoid taxing the same entity lor the ~a me business tax . The provision is clear and leaves no room for more interpretation. It shou ld be ap plied as it is, pursuant to the longstanding rule in statutory construction th at if a statute is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal mea ning and applied without allempted interpretation. 8 On the basis of Sections 15 1 and 143 of th e LGC, the Mani Ia Reve nue Code (MRC) was enacted and became effective on July 1, 1993. The MRC was later on amended on September 30, I <J9J through Ordinance No. 7807.9 T he follow ing are the pertinent provisions, pa ri Iy quot ed: "Section 1.-J.. 1'a.,-.: on Mamifacturers, Assemblers and Other Processors. - 'l here is hereby imposed a gradu ated ta x on manufacturers, assel11blers, repackers, processors, brewers, di stillers, rectifiers and compounders of liquo rs, disti lled spirits, and wi nes or manufacturers of an y article of commerce of whatever kind or nature, in accordance with the lullowing schedul e: xxx Section 2 1. 'J'ux on Business Subject to the Lxcise, T'ufue- Added or Percenwge 1axes Under !he NJRC. - On an y of the following businesses and articles of commerce subj ect to th e excise, value-added or perce ntage taxes und er th e National Internal Reven ue Code hereinafter relet reu to as NIRC, as amended, a tax of fifty percent (50%) of one percent (l %) per ann um on the gross sa les or receipts of the precedmg ca lendar is hereby imposed: 8 Huertas vs. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 1)24 43, 1-'cbruary 14,2 005 9 Further amendments were inlr\.>du\:cd by Ordinance No. 7988. However, Ordinance Nos. 7988 was declared null and void by th e ~upr erne Co urt in the case of Coca-Co la Bottl ers !'hils. vs. C ity of Manila, 493 SCRA 27 9 (2006). �~ ; n �1

Deci s ion C.T.A. A.C. No. 41 Page 8 A) Un persons who sell goods and services in th~ course of trade of bu::.H1ess, and those who import goods whether tor business or ullle rw ise, as provided for in sections 100 to 103 of the Nll C as admin istered and determined by the Bureau of Internal Revenue pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the said code. B) On the gross receipts of keepers of garages, cars lor rent or hire dn vert l)y the lessee, transportation contractor!'>, perso ns who lran::.pun passengers or freight for hire, and common cani ers land , air or water, except owners of bancas and owners of animal -drawn two-wheel ve hicle. C) On the amo unt paid on every overseas dispa tch, message 01 conversa tion transmitted from the Philip pines by tel ephone, t~legraph, telewriter exchange, wireless and other commun ication eq uipment services, except amounts paid by the govenUl wut, ib pu litical subd ivisions or instrumL:n ahties; diplomatic serv rces; public international organizations or any or their agenci(.;s baseJ in the Ph ilippines; and news services . The tax shall be payable by the person paying lor the services rendered and shall be paid to the person rendering the services whu is required to collect and pay the tax wit hin twenty (20) days a!'te r the end of eac h quarter." A reading of the above shows, that Sect ions 14 and 21 are based trom Section 143(a) and (h) of the LGC, rL:spectively. Being so, Sections 14 and 2 I shou ld be interpreted in relatio n to Sectio n 143 of the LGC. For the assumption is that whenever a law is enacted, the lawmakers has in mind the previous statutes rela ting to the same subject matter, and 111 the absence of express repeal or amendmen t, the new statute is enacted in accord with the legislati ve poli cy embodi ed in those prior statutes. 10 Appropri ately, the rntcnt behind Section 143 of taxing a subject entity of business tax once should likewise be applied in understand ing and appl ying Sections 14 and 21 of the MRC, as amended. ln other words, a subject entity held li able under Section 14 ofthe MRC, as alllt:IH.kd, is debarred from being taxed under Sec tion 2 1 of the same Code and vice-versa. weorona vs. Court of Appeal s

Decision C.T.A. A.C. No. 41 Page 9 or s Petitioner is bL:Illg llldd~ liable bu~i ness tax un der �ction 14 as a manufacturer. A "nwnujixturer" is deilned in Section 13 1(o) o f the LGC as that which "includes eve1 y person ll1ho, by physical or chemical process, alters the exterior texture or form or til Iter substance of any raw material or mum!fuctured or partially manufactured product in such manner as to prepare it for special use or uses to which it would not hu w been put in its original condition, or �who by tmy p rocess, alters the quality of any such mw material or mcmt!factured or p artially manufactured products so as to redw.:e If to u marketable shape or prepare it for any of' the use in the industry, or who by any process, combines any such raw material or manufactured or p artially llllllll!/actured products with other materials or products of the same or different kinds uml in such manner that the finish ed products of such process or manufacture cwt be put to a .special use or uses to �which such raw material or mamifauured or partially manufactured products in their original condition could not have bet!n put ancl who in addition, alters such mw material or manufactured or p artw fly tJUIIIt!factured products or combines the same to p roduce such finish ed products }or the purpose of their sale or distribution to others and not for his own use or consumptto11." Simpl�y put, a manufacturer sells its goods for a fee. Petitioner is again taxed under Section 2 1(A) of the MRC, as amended, for being a business subj ect to '"excise, value-added , and percentage tax" which sells goods in the course of trade or business . Apparently, petitioner is be ing taxed twice of the sam e business tax for selling its goods in the course or its business. Such form of taxation is contrary to the policy of Section 143 of the LGC and consequently, to that of Sections 14 and 2 1 of the MRC, as amended. Moreover, the phrase "on any business subject to excise, value-added or percentage tax under the Nutumal internal Revenue Code" in Sec tion 143(h) of the LGC merely qualifi es or l11n its the rate of lax to be imposed on bus inesses already subject to excise, va lue-uddt:d or percentage tax under the NIRC of 1997, and does not authorize Local Governments to impose business tax upon an entity already

Decision C.T.A. A.C. No. 41 Page 10 subject to the same ta.'. u 11 Ill(.; mere ground that such entity is subJI.!c t to ''excise, value-added or p erceJlluJ:;r..: tu.A wuler the National internal Revenue Code." The next questi on to to te is whether there is a case of doubl e taxa tion, and in case there is, whether it is a pro hibited do uble taxati on. The answer is in the alfi rm ative . Double taxation is defin ed as taxing the same property twice when it sho uld be taxed but once. It has also been defined as taxing the same person twice by the same juri sdiction over the same thing.11 In general, it is not fo rbiddt.:n by o ur fundamental law, since We have no adopted as part thereof the injuncti o n against do uble taxa tio n fo und in the Consti tuti on of the United States. Double taxati on becon es obnox ious o nl y where the taxpayer is taxed twice for the benefit of the same gove rnmental entity or by the same jurisdiction for the same purpose. 12 Explicated in ano ther way, do uble taxation in its obnox io us or prohibited sense is described as ''direu duplicate taxation," the two taxes must be imposed on the same subject matter, lor the same purpose, by the same taxing authori ty, within the same jurisdiction, d urin g the same laxing peri od; and they must be the same kind or character. 13 It is direct dupl icate taxation that is not allowed in o ur jurisdi ction for being violative of the equ al protection clause. 14 Based on the forego ing, doub le taxati on JS prohibited when the fo llowing elements are present: a. Being taxed twice when it sho ul d be taxed o nly once; b. both taxes are imposed on the same property or subj ect matter; c. for the same pu rpose; d. by the same state, liovernment, or tax ing authority; e. within the same jurisdictio n or taxing di strict; f. during the sa me the same taxing peri od; and g. covering the same ki nd or character of tax . 11 Victorias Milling Co. vs. Mun icipa lity of Vi ctori as, Negros Occidental, L-2 11 83, Sept ember 27, 1968 12 Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. vs. Muui cipa lity of Tanauan, Leyte, 69 SCRA 460 t 13 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Solid bank Corp., G.R. No. 14819, November 25, 2003 14 Constitutional Law by Ju stice bc~gun i Cruz, 1998 Edition, page 90 kt___

Decision C.T.A. A.C. No. 41 Page 11 Applying the aloreclleu d~ mition and doctr ines, petiti oner Is being taxed under Sections 14 and 2 1(A) o f the MRC, as amended, for the same ki nd of tax, that is, business tax; by the 'ity of Mani la, being the same tax ing authori ty; wi thin the same taxing district of the City of Manila; for the same period of the 1irst quarter of 2003; and for the same reason of regu lating busi ness within the City. This is a clear example of direct dupl icate ta xa tio n. In addition, We lind erroneous, respondent's argument that there is no double taxation on the grou nd that Section 2 1 of the MRC , as amended, is not a direct tax on the petitioner but to its customers in view of the modifying provi so therein, which state that "the tax shall be payable by the person paying for the services rendered and shall be paid to the p erson re11dering the services who is required tv ~:olleu and pay the tax within twenty (20) duys i(/ier end ofeach quarter." Consequently, Section 14 of the MRC, as amend ed, being a direc t tax on the business, and Section 2 1 of the same Code, an indirect tax, there are two taxes of diffe rent kinds or characters. Under the doctrine ol last antecedent, qualifYing words restricl vr modifY only the words or phrases tv 111hidz they are immediately associated. Th ey do nut qualifY words or phrases which are di.�;twztly or remotely located. 15 In line with thi s doctri11e, We construe that the plu�ase: '�the tax shall be payable by the p erson jJ(iylilg jar the services rendered and shall be paid to the person rendering the servi~:es who is required to cvllect and pay the tax within twenty (20) days after end of eudz quarter" of Section 2 1 of the MRC, as amended, applies only to subparagraph (C), being the paragraph to which the subject qualifying/modifying phrase are immedia tely associated. The doctrine or last a1ttecedent _is subj ect to the exception 1ha1, where the intention of the law is tv apply the phrase to all antecedents embraced in the provision, the same should be made extensive to the whole. 16 The exception, however, failed to apply in this case. A perusal of Section 21 reveals tha t there is no ::Statutory Construction by Ruben Agpa lo, 5'h Ed. , 200 3, page 232 Supra, page 234 . .. ,fl

Decision C.T.A. A.C. No. 41 Page 12 legislative intent to appl y ll! ~ qualirying phrase to the whol e provisio n. T hus, it is incoherent for respon dent to ~xtend the applicability of the qua li Jying plu�ase under Section 21(C) to sub paragraph (A) in order to justify a plain case or direct duplicate taxation. Furthermore, rl:::,ptmdent' s interpretation of Section 2 1 o t' the MRC, as amended, that what is betng taxed is no t the business itself but the ''p urchasing power" of the person paying for the services finds no basis in law. Sc:cti on 2 1 is beyond doubt a business tax on entities subj ect to excise, value-added o r percentage tax, and not on the "pun.:IIustJJg power" of the buyer, which is not a business pursuit. This is patent from a reading of Section 2 1. A lso, it is worthwhil e to reiterate that Section 21 is merely rooted on Section 143(h) of the LGC, and Section 143(h) is clear that it is a tax on the business itself Likewise, it is signi licant to stress at this juncture, that the NIRC of 1997 contains a counterpart provision, to w it: "SEC. 120. Tax on Overseas Dispatch, Message or Conversatio n Origi� ati tg from the Philippines.- (A) Persons Liable. - There shall be collected upon every overseas dispatch, 1 1essage, or conversation transmit1ed fi�om the Philippines by telephone, telegraph, telewriter exchange, wireless and other communication equipment services, a tax of ten percent (1 U%) on the amount paid Jor such serv ices. The tax imposed in thi s Sectio n shall be payable by the person paying for the services rendered and shall be paid to the person ren dering the services who is required to collect and pay th e lax within twenty (20) days after the end of each quarter. (B) Excmplitms. - The tax imposed by this Section shall not apply to : (I) Gov enu1l~Ill xxx (2) Diplomatic Services xxx (3) International Urganizations xxx (4) News ~crvtces xxx ." The similarities between Sec tion 120 of the NIRC of 1997, and Section 2 l(C) ofthe MRC, as amended, an~ utunistakable. Both sections deals with tax on overseas ..

Decision C.T.A. A.C. No. 41 Page 13 dispatch, message or cunv~r::.at1un transmitted {i�om the Philippines by telephone, telegraph, telewriter exchull g~, wireless and other communication e4uipment services; both exempted similar entiti~s from the tax, and both taxes are payab le by the end users. It is a well establi shed rule that a statute should be so cons trued not only to be consistent with itself but ulso to harmonize with other laws on the same subject matter, as to form a complde, co herent and intelli gent system. T he rule is expressed in the maxim, inle!pretun: et cvncorcJare leges legibus est optimus interpretandi modus, or every statute must be so construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a unifom1 system ol j wl sprudence. 17 Stated differently, every statute should be so construed in such way that wi ll harmonize it w ith existing laws. To interpret and do it in such a way as to harmonize laws with laws is the bes t method of interpretation. 18 Guided by the abo vunentioned rule, it is ap propriate to comprehend that the phrase "the tax shall be puyuble hy the person paying for the services rendered and shall be paid to the person re11dering services who is required to cof!ect and pay the tax within twenty (20) duys (!/fer the end of each quarter" applies only to Section 21 (C) of the MRC, as amenckd, jus t so to harmoni ze the said section with Section 120 of the NIRC of 1997. For all the foregoing, since petitioner is already taxed under Section 14 of the MRC, as amended, it should no longer be held liable for the same lax under Section 21(A) thereof. WHEREFORE, the instan t Petition for Review is hereby <..;RAN TED and the appealed Deci sion duted May 25, 2007, and the Order dated August 3 1, 2007 are REVERSED. 17 Supra, page 268 18 Sps. Antonio and Lorenc i1 a Alglllcl vs. LGU of The Ci ty of Manila, et al, G.R. No. 150135, October 30,2006 1 �)

Decision C.T.A. A.C. No. 41 Page 14 Accordingly , re::,po~tdcnl, I reasurcr of tlw City or ivlwula, is hereby ORDERED TO REFUND to pet itioner, Unil ever Phi lippines, Jnc., the tota l amount of P13,724,446 .00 repre::,enLing petitioner's erroneo usly paid local business taxes for the first quarter of taxabk yea r 2003. SO ORDERE D. Q~ \o. ~ ERN ES'l 0 D. ACOSTA Presidmg Justice CAESAR A. CASAN OVA Associate Justice CE RTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Artic le V lll of the Co ns titution, it is hereby ce1iified that the conclusions in tht: above Dec ision were reached in con sultation before the case was assigned to the wnter ol the opinion of the Co urt' s Di vision. r~~ .c~ ERNESTO L>. ACOSTA Presidi ng Justice Court ofTax Appeals Library 'tnm =