CTA Case No. 2498 (Decision)

RI�:<�"!ILIC OF TllE PHILIPPI~E8 (_:;;i'HT nF TAX APPEALS QUE:tON CITY -- . . .. ..... ----�- - � till � - -"" 1 ~ore,a 01 n b . .. il al t 1 � 0 ov � .. 3� � nc .. s n � c;:,;n.. i 4 th c , op~.: ... tic � 48

DEC ISION �� � '!I 1 t1 i;.� r: jJ : 49

- Dl:.CI3IuN u � t ' r � � ,, 50 '

D �CIS t ' ~� �.'51

1 'i' I 52 '

0 an t !t. 1 th$ r t$:l tI id J~st , i.t eon�t1 o t ~t:l."-etU>y J1J .. ~1~~, !~or!. or:! ll u,a :~.et , u teu , , t 'l !' 11 t ' 94 ~6. rs.ai v tit eOrif a 'uJ. P !'l I 53

u- o. 2498 7 of concession granted by the Spanish Gov rnment in 189 � - ounsel for the applicant contends , however , that the t r ' public utility � as used in the constitution has a special and restrict d eaning, that is, that it should be construed in the ight of section 16 of the Public ervic w whi ch limits th ter to those enga ed in or o erating �it in the hili pines, thus impliedly excluding those n a ed in busin ss xclusively interstat � Concu ring in he vie thus stated, th und rsigned is of the opinion that public utilitie en aged xclusiv ly in int national co erce are beyond the purview of tne co1stitutional provision in que tion . To hold othe is would be to as- cribe to tre Constitution 1 Convention tlle in- tention of isolati ng the Philip in s from the rest of tne civilized wor d s would - under the cir- cu stance then and stlll revailing - in vitahly follow if all foreign public utilities nbaged in int rnational transpo tation an communication w re to b bann d from est blishin ter inals and o ficas in this juri aiction. Th disastrous con equ nc s of such a policy are too obvious as to need furth r e aboration. XX Petitioner al o contends that in p ssing Hous Bill 1099 wnich became epublic ct 1~o. 808, 'ongr s ade th legislative deter ination that 'petitioner is not a ubl e utility doi , usiness in the Philippin s" b c us the bill is pr s nted to enab e petitioner to continu operating its expired concession. ( xp anatory ote to tne 111). he said xplanatory note found su port in th opinion of t e t en ecreta y of Justic icardo epo ceno, dated arc. 14, 1950, rho said t t1 I find not. .:.n legally or constitutiona ly objectio e in t e bill. " eti- tioner argued, therefore, t t th 1 islat1ve determi- nation on the constitutionality of the franchise in uestion :�' 54

....._, . 1. � - � � 1 c t � ' 1 ., 5�5

.~�� .n My i' I .5 .6 I

Dl::GIS IO. '� <~;J. 29 Ja t'U!'vUJl 0 tt n 1 t . t!i l~t t II th� t- l..li r my mind ) t e.nt 'l tn t 1 they il 57 :'

DECISION 11 d t.J\l opit lo 1 that :. t r 1.:1 'f~ . "' � 1 t t 41.. c � ag d 0 ono -� 1 '1 I "' Ttus io o� no t. . O).:ration 1\ ~t .��,�') f , tl t.;< ub �n b H ., ui. 1~J..C t; 'll'Vl ,� :I ., .:"Uollc ;�vicv .. n .;,..., t .!...,O'lll �x� fer .i.i i � mu:rd.c� t 'd .. ..m.i~.; io.t � l oro .t. co....l\.il" 1,. t on" ~or- HiCt 11 l"' .... ''ii . t� 1. :u.:. &1 \ � cr~ Si"l -;:J". ou ..� 1~(>~ r::tl.\ t .ts nq ro ' �e-r ....+i~-! h �t�. t~....,...i.l

�' 9 12 the t co c 1 y ar lo t op at in � 10 c1� t �t 1 ati ubj ct 1sdlct1on o t lip bl1c a to il' r 1: 1.. e1 l, r law t�r 0 . h co .t ol c s.ry of ct 0 r :,') h equ~nc1 b. n t 1 00 tation � " & s .1 s u o:r r qui ... . ar 1: the o ratio .. o... p ti !one � ct t , 1 1 e('!!; othe �is p t t1on&r ill 0 tili y co p ru ion p 0 la � t l . h� t of u tic co elu e h!:l. l:' t1- 1 1 y 1! n ... natio 1 co .re t it i nd. ore.l n a 1 1 1 or - na d i 1 int r ation l e or y r ns g or in "' erso , things nd p lt ., el 1 c .(, o, j, inbo �m � :11e 1 1, � � Jo � 65; .n u. T l �� ~ o. all ' o., i b. 2. 506, 27 2) . t othe 1 .. t co ic ion s ha eP 4on ly ~tall era. i � 41 ee 11 bi an I t enc o� th 1 ip ..t . In or tion $ ot 0 1 n c rpo a.t1on , �h :.,

13 Ol' a.irpl , t po:rt tton � 11'$ and the sta$' in t .tle hilip es 1s tra.ns.1 �nt whU t' t .cilit:l.e . h re or e p .. an rt13' .loa ted and. op r1Jt�d in this eountry. It 1 e .t�, til r efor 1 h t p ti ion o 1:� puo i u Uity in .. , 11 uG io t m ba ar t1tio.r..er' pu l o ut111t. i oy n hili pi.n o a o.rei n co � w:ty .t � not an op rat1on \lit 1n t .1e hil111 pin � , th r c~~t o 1 r. 'hll1ppih� or tol com.tlllJ1U.c.a ion :from said foreit:n count1�y cot, titut 1:1 O.J:.~ tion lil - tn ..)~hi i:ppin � n �b.a ., I 1' &" ;.I. t1ti n r� act1. t1 Ull'".l j.'tS 1 � gislativ t'rtu"l� � I a eon ce ~t titione t 0 ic ut 11 r~t.on 1 0 rioli.t .. 1n h Phili.P insa u.nd r t lle Service Law. Ct' � t y o� � uz.: t.ic ...tat d th t tho t1otlal 1 t�ov :.:>io. i.."l qu ~ s t1on ttlta obviously d :1signed to d d 11 r c \l�.. tion to .tli-t i o u !r1a sna in tn 1 de �..,o.: to comxJste wi a 1 �!l me chrult , a pUt'pos to dL.... :c g~4d c:: + must not be at rib:.1 d. o tn on cept u . th s cog If -:,~�~ mus speak oi' Qound p 11 p licy on. 0 nic io ., it 1 in 1 t c;,.-c 1'tal .tie t ..de.t� t .. o can ol of' Fi.l.1 ino~ oz� b !' . �60

In ol of i i' 6�1

- . II ' code which read I,, . 62I.'

DECISION c "2 / � v-i,.:tu� o ti~.onor i' ? 6 3

DECISION \# 1 , v { � I 1 ,, .. ' '' 64

DECISION 01 2 '<i,;... :~~ . 1 t! (!i) 1Ul all g.e. t .X ill(' l l � i 0 l �'U. cu ;;..,.u ' Ot.Uld. U.""Utl whl _d 11. �t v 1~ 1 � ~ 1noi tJ..!J::J 6 e\i, sS 0.1 VII of tul!a' .. 4~".J C nst1 ... fl�. -aJ.., vu u �n lld.il by ' p '.l 1' � . two I-. ~1 r~ ,, t.l f.! llo<> at tlw; ht .s '\;;!) t 10 f':'J!':' a �r~r.:. 0 nM.1e ~ ' a,..., .J~ :t V.':l b ~~n c o!' 1 6:5 '

-- DECISION ' .� tr :. J ! ~ ~ . 19 tut � 11 I J :' ' 6 6

D CISION

�DECIS ION l.;_.l' \.t_...; 1 I � ~1�1 � n Co ~ ' in to ..-.v,. '"'C t-;� 11 I of a~r ..~bl1 0 ~ \t Q Y""'' 19 � J; t, p tQ tn. 1. r�s .!.. Q0 "0 i t .tz J.�.,...-.�;.t...r. � l....... y .1... d. ~,;l by t.i\ t1tior � 1 .� t. , 71. o -tv ny l� ttl fore o. tn - C te . !' ;68

DECISION a ' ... 'il' 69 ..

DECISION ,, 70 :'

!J.ti.Cl ,jJ.t. f {.; �~ i 7A~. j. U.t .4-t.�t ~ ' � 6 Qf dl� l ..� ) ~<�l}Ulint ~ f ' . t.. S.!<f.\' til;fl~ f�: " p"�;t Qd of j W "+ n � � , 7.1