THE CITY OF MAKATI represented in this case by its City Mayor, the HON. JEJOMAR C. BINAY, the OIC City Treasurer, NELIA A. BARLIS, and the OIC of the Business Tax Division, FELITO A. MANRIQUE v. TRANS-ASIA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION

Republic of t he Phi lippines COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City EN BANC THE CITY OF MAKATI CTA EB CASE NO. 1086 represented in this case by (CTA AC Case No. 87 ) its City Mayor, the HON. JEJOMAR C. BINAY, the OIC Prese nt: City Treasurer, NELIA A. DE L RO_SARIO, P.J., BARLIS, and the OIC of the CASTAN EDA, JR., Business Tax Division, BAUTISTA, FELITO A . MANRIQUE, UY, Petition er, CASANOVA, FABON - VICTORINO , - v ersus- MINDARO - GRULLA, COTAN GCO- MANALASTAS I TRANS-ASIA POWER RINGPIS-LIBAN, JJ. GENERATION CORPORATION, Promulgated: Respondent. JAN Z1 2015 x--------------------------------0----.-.E-..-:-C:-:-:-.-.I.-.-.-S:-!-~-.~-.!-.-J-O-;-!--I'-N----#--!._'!_:~r._.c_~-�-,.-..-.-.-x MINDARO- GRULLA, J .: Submitted for decision is a Petition for Review for the Court En Bane under Section 2 (a)(2), Rule 4, in relation to Section 4(b), Rule 8 of the 2005 Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appea ls, as amended, seeking the reversa l of the Deci sion 1 and Reso lution 2 rendered by t he Special First Division of this Court on July 10, 2013 and October 23, 2013, respe ctive ly. Th e antecedent fact s as cul led from the Decision of th e Special First Division of this Court are as fo llows: " Petitioner City of Ma kati is a local governm ent unit and is sued herein as such t hro ugh its City Mayor in t he latter's capa city or officia l duty to e nforce laws t: 1 Penned by Associate Justice Esperanza R. Fa bo n- Vi ct orino and concurred in by Associa te Justice Erlind a P. Uy ; En Bane Docket , pp . 90- 107 . 7 !d., at 117- 120.

/he Cily of Mokoli reprcsenled in /his case by ils Cily Ma yor, Page 2 of 14 /he lion. .Jejomor C. 13inoy, /he OIC Cily /rcosurer, Nelia A 13orlis, and /he 0/C of /he 13usiness lox Division, 1-c/i/o A. Manrique -vs.- Trans-Asia Power Generation Corporation m CT A Case No. 1086 (CTA AC Case No. 87) DECISION and regulations relative to the governance of and the exercise of corporate powers by the City. Respondent Trans-Asia Power Generation Corporation is a domestic corporation, with principal business address at Level 11, Phinma Plaza, 39 Plaza Drive, Rockwell Center, Makati City 1200. It is primarily engaged in the business of building, erecting, owning, installing, operating, maintaining, selling, leasing power generation plants; and purchasing, importing, acquiring, owning, leasing, or letting power generation, transmission, te lecommunications, transportation and other kinds of equipment, materials and facilities. For the years 1996 to 2005, petitioner classified respondent as 'PRODUCER' for Local Business Tax (LBT) purposes and respondent paid the corresponding business tax. For the first two quarters of 2006, petitioner also paid LBT as a ' PRODUCER'. In the Order of Payment dated June 14, 2006, petitioner changed respondent's classification from 'PRODUCER' to 'SERVICES-OTHER CO ' . Consequently, the third quarter LBT payment was increased from Php453,910.35 to Php648,443.35, and the additional amount of P389,066 .00 LBT for the first and second quarters was imposed. On July 17, 2006, respondent paid under protest the business tax of Php648,443 .35 for the 3rd Quarter of 2006 and Php389,066.00 deficiency business taxes for the 1sL and 2nd quarters of 2006, all in the total amount of Php1,039,196.85 (inclusive of garbage fees of P1,687.50). On October 13, 2006, or within the reglementary period of two (2) years from payment of taxes, respondent requested a return from its former classification of business from 'SERVICES- OTHER CO' to 'PRODUCER' and a refund of Php583,599.00, representing erroneously and illegally col lected excess local business taxes for the first, second and third quarters of 2006. (

the City or Ma ko ti represented in /h is c a se by its City M ayor, l' a ge 3 of 14 /he / ton..Jejomar C. l3inay, /he 0/C City trea surer, Nelia A. l3ar/is, and /he OIC or the l3usiness tax Division, 1-c/i/o A. M anrique -vs.- Trans-1\sia Po w er Generation Corpora tion CTA m Case No. 1086 (CTA AC Case No. 87) DECISION As the protest letter remained unresolved, respondent filed a civil action for Protest of Assessment of Business Tax with Claim for Refund against petitioner on October 16, 2006 before Branch 134 of the RTC of Makati City. The case entitled 'Trans-Asia Power Generation Corporation vs. City of Makati, represented by the City Mayor, the Hon. Jejomar C. Binay, the OIC City Treasurer, Nelia A. Barlis, and the OIC of the Business Tax Division, Felito A. Manrique' was docketed as Civil Case No. 06- 880. After the exchange of various pleadings and trial, the Court a quo rendered the assailed Decision 3 of December 22, 2010, the dispositive portion of which reads : WHER EFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff Trans-Asia Power Generation Corporation and against defendant City of Makati, ord ering the latter the following: 1) To go back to its earlier classification of plaintiff as ' Producer' or ' Manufacturer' as provid ed in th e Makati Revenue Code for local business ta x purposes; 2) To issu e tax credit to plaintiff in the total amount of Php583,599 .00 representing excess local business tax for the first, second, and third quarters of 2006; 3) To refund subsequent business ta x paym ent made in excess of 52.5�/o of 1�/o that may have been paid by plaint iff und er protest and; 4 ) To pay attorney's fees in the amount of Php20,000.00 SO ORDERED . In finding for respondent, the RTC looked into the nature of respondent's business and its operation . It found that respondent is engaged in the business of transforming fuel into electricity and selling it to the end user. Following the ejusdem generis rule, the RTC ratiocinated that a careful analysis of respondent's business in line with the definition of 'manufacturer/producer' and 'contractor' and the( 3 En Bane Docket, pp. 54 -62 .

/he City or Makoti represented in /his case by its City Mayor, Page 4 of 14 the lion ..Jejomor C. l3inoy, /he OIC City treasurer, Nelia A. l3or/is, and the OIC or the l3usiness lox Division, 1-e/i/o A. Manrique -vs.- Trans-1\sia Power Genera tion Corporation m CTA Case No. 1086 (CTA AC Case No. 87) DECISION enumerations of persons and things that follows after each defi nition show that respond ent's business operation fall s within the scope of manufacturer/producer. On April 19, 2011, petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was deni ed in the Ord er dated January 27, 2012."4 On July 10, 2013, the Special First Division of this Court promulgated a Decision 5 aff irming the Decision and Order of the RTC of Makati City, Branch 134, dated December 22, 2010 and Jan uary 27, 2012, respectively. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads: "WHEREFORE , t he in stant Petition for Review filed by petitioner is hereby DISMISSED, for la ck of m erit. The Decision dated December 22, 2010 and the Ord er dat ed January 27, 201 2, both rendered by th e Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 134 in Civil Case No. 06 -880 entitled 'Trans-Asia Power Generation Corporation vs. City of Makati, represe nted in thi s case by the City Mayor, th e Hon . Jej omar C. Binay, the OIC City Treasurer, Nelia A. Barlis, and the OIC of the Business Tax Divi sion, Felito A. Manrique' are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED ."6 Petition e r th e reafte r fi led a "Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 10 July 2 01 3 )"7 which was denied by th e Court a quo in a Reso lution8 dated Octobe r 23, 2013, th e dispositive portion of which reads: "WHEREFORE , there being no new matters and issues advanced th at will m erit reco nsi deration, let alon e modification of t he assai led Decision of Jul y 10, ( 4 Id., at 61- 62 . 5 Supra note 1. 6 En Bane Docket , p. 10 6; See Resoluti on dated Oct ober 23, 2013, En Bane Docket, p. 118. 'Filed on Au gust 14, 2013; En Bane Docket , pp . 108-115. 8 Supra note 2 .

the City or Makoti represented in this case by its City Mayor, l)age ~> of 14 the /ton..Jejomar C. 13inay, the 0/C City treasurer, Nelia A 13or/is, and the OIC or the Business tax Division, f-clilo A Manrique -vs.- Trans-1\sia Power Generation Corporation CTA m Case No. l 086 (CTA AC Case No. 87) DECISION 2013, petition er 's Motion for Reconsideration dated Augu st 13, 2013 is hereby DENIED, for lack of merit. On the oth er hand, the Manifestation dated September 24, 2013 filed by respondent on September 26, 2013, is NOTED . SO ORD ERED ."9 Hence, the instant Petition for Review was filed. Petitioner raises the following arguments, to wit: 10 "I. Whether or not the Honorable Special First Division of the Court of Tax Appea ls gravely erred in affirming the Decision dated 22 December 2010 and the Order dated January 27, 2012 both rendered by the Hon. Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 134 in Civil Case No. 06 - 880, and thus classifying respondent Trans-Asia Power Generation Corporation as a ' MANUFACTURER', and not as a 'CONTRACTOR', for local business tax purposes, and order the petitioner: a. To go back to its earlier classification of the herein respondent as Producer, albeit the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. b. To credit/refund to herein respondent the amount representing alleged excess local business taxes for the 1st, 2 nd and 3 rd quarters of 2006, as well as the local business tax payment allegedly made in excess of 52. 5�/o of 1�/o that may have been paid by respondent under protest. II. Whether or not the Honorable Special First Division of the Court of Tax Appea ls gravely erred in failing to make a ru ling that respondent Tran s-Asia Power Generation Corporation miserably failed to overcome the presumption against tax refunds.~ 9 En Bane Docket , p . 120 . 10 En Bane Docke t , pp . 6-7 .

the Cily or Mokoli rcpresen led in /his case by ils C il y Ma yor, l'oge 6 of 14 Ihe lion. .Jejomor C. 13inoy, Ih e O IC Cily treasurer, Nelia A. 13orlis, and /he O IC o r lh e Business lox Division, t-clil o A. Manrique -vs.- Trons-1\sia Power Generation Corpora tion CTA m Case No. 1086 (CTA AC Case No. 87) DECISION III. Whether or not the Honorable Special First Division of the Court of Tax Appeals gravely erred in affirming the Honorable Regional Trial Court of Makati City's Decision dated December 22, 2010 and the Order dated January 27, 2012, erroneously awarding P20 ,000.00 as attorney's fees in favor of respondent, Trans-Asia Power Generation Corporation, despite the absence of awards for moral and exemplary damages." The principal issue to be resolved in this case is whether petitioner correctly reclassified respondent as "Contractor" for loca I business tax purposes. Petitioner vigorously argues that respondent's actual nature of business corresponds with the definition of a "Contractor" under Section 131(h) of the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991. It contends that respondent not only supplies electricity to Hi -Cement but also manages, operates and maintains and even repairs the power plant/s of Hi- Cement, for a substantial fee or consideration. Petitioner therefore concludes that respondent is considered as a " Contractor", engaged in the installation of electricity, and even management and operation of power plants. Petitioner anchors its argument that respondent is a "service-enterprise" based on the General Terms and Conditions of its Certificate of BOI Registration dated September 23, 1996 (Exhibit "A") 11 requiring the latter to submit the following reporting requirement to the Infrastructure & Service-Oriented Industries Department; and the Electricity Supply Agreement (ESA) between Hi Cement and Trans Asia-Power Generation Corporation (Exhibit "P") 12 requiring Hi Cement to pay for Electricity Fees for the services rendered by respondent. In its comment, respondent argues that it is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of electricity as it uses bunker fuel as raw material for its power generation plant and converts the same fuel by mechanical and chemical<' 11 RTC Docket , pp. 107-111. 12 Id ., at 14 2-177 .

the City or Makoti represented in this case by its City Mayor, Page I of 14 the /ton . .Jejomar C. 13inay, the 0/C City treasurer, Nelia A. 13arlis, and /he 0/C or /he 13usiness tax Division, t-cli/o A. Manrique -vs.- Trans-1\sia Power Generation Corporation m CTA Case No. 1086 (CTA AC Case No. 87) DECISION process to electricity. Respondent adds that it takes bunker fuel as a raw material then feeds it into the plant's diesel engine, which ignites and burns the fuel, producing heat energy. In the instant case, the fuel undergoes a process called combustion; while heat is used to activate the plant's turbine, converting heat energy into mechanical energy. Respondent asserts that the nature of its business fits in the definition of a "manufacturer" under Section 131(o) of the LGC and Section 3A.01(11) of the Makati Revenue Code as it transforms the chemical energy in fuel into electrical energy in generating electricity. Thus, respondent claims that it is entitled to a refund of excess local business taxes that it paid to petitioner under protest. Moreover, respondent counters that the General Terms and Conditions of its Certificate of Registration with the BOI do not establish that it is a contractor nor state that it is a "service-enterprise". Even assuming arguendo that the BOI Certificate of Registration classifies respondent as "service- enterprise", it was solely for the purpose of availing benefits under the Omnibus Investments Act and is neither relevant nor controlling for local business tax purposes. Similarly, respondent argues that the additional undertakings rendered by respondent under the ESA are merely ancillary to and in aid of its primary function as producer of electricity in order to ensure the safe and continuous delivery of the electricity sold. The instant petition is partly meritorious. The definitions of "Contractor" and "Manufacturer" provided under Section 131 (h) and (o), respectively, of the LGC of 1991, and Sections 3A.01(t) and 3A.01(11) of the Makati Revenue Code, are the guiding light in order to correctly classify respondent's nature of business, thus: SEC. 131. Definition of Terms. - When used in this Title, the term: XXX (h) "Contractor" includes persons, natural or juridical, not subject to professional tax under Section 139 of this Code, whose activity consists essentially of the sale of all~

the City or Moko li rcprcsenled in /his case by ils Ci ly Mayor, Page 8 o f 14 /he lion . .Jejomor C. Binoy, /he OIC Cily lrcosurcr, Nelia A Bar/is, and /he 0/C or /he Business lox Division, 1-e/i/o A Manrique -vs. - Trans 1\sia Power Generation Corporation CTA m Case No. 1086 (CTA AC Case No. 87) DECISION kinds of services for a fee, regardless of whether or not the performance of the service calls for the exercise or use of the physical or mental faculties of such contractor or his e m p l o y e e s. As used in this Section, the term "contractor" shall include general engineering, general building and specialty contractors as defined under applicable laws; filling, demolition and salvage works contractors; proprietors or operators of mine drilling apparatus; proprietors or operators of dockyards; persons engaged in the installation of water system, and gas or electric light, heat, or power; proprietors or operators of smelting plants, engraving, plating, and plastic lamination establishments; proprietors or operators of estab li shments for repairing, repainting, upholstering, washing or greasing of vehicles, heavy equipment, vulcanizing, recapping and battery charging; proprietors or operators of furniture shops and estab li shments for planing or surfacing and recutting of lumber, and sawmills under contract to saw or cut logs belonging to others; proprietors or operators of dry cleaning or dyeing estab lishments, steam laundries, and laundries using washing machines; proprietors or owners of shops for the repair of any kind of mechanical and electrica l devices, instruments, apparatus, or furniture and shoe repairing by machine or any mechanical contrivance; proprietors or operators of estab li shments or lots for parking purposes; proprietors or operators of tailor shops, dress shops, milliners and hatters, beauty parlors, barbershops, massage clinics, sauna, Turkish and Swedish baths, slenderizing and building saloons and si milar establishments; photographic studios; funeral parlors; proprietors or operators of hotels, motel s, and lodging hou ses; proprietors or operators of arrastre and stevedoring, warehousing, or forwarding esta blishments; master plumbers, smiths, and house or sign painters; printers, bookbind ers, lithographers; publi shers except those engaged in the~

the Cily o f Makoti reprcsen led in /his case by ils Cily Mayor, Page 9 o f 14 /he I to n..Jejomar C. l3inay, /he OIC Cily /rcasurer, Nelia A. l3ar/is, and /he 0/C of /he l3usiness tax Division, 1-e/i/o A. Manrique -vs.- Trans-Asia Power Generation Corporation m CTA Coso No. 1086 (CTA AC Coso No. 87) DECISION publication or printing of any newspaper, magazine, review or bulletin which appears at regular intervals with fixed prices for subscription and sale and which is not devoted principally to the publication and advertisements; business agents, private detective or watchman agencies, commercial and immigration brokers, and cinematographic film owners, lessors and distributors. XXX (o) "Manufacturer" includes every person who, by physical or chemical process, alters the exterior texture or form or inner substance of any raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured product in such manner as to prepare it for special use or uses as to which it could not have been put in its original condition, or who by any such process alters th e quality of any raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured products so as to reduce it to marketable shape or prepare it for any of the use of industry, or who by any such process combines any such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured products with other materials or products of the same or of different kinds and in such manner that the finished products of such process or manufacture can be put to a special use or uses to which such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured products in th eir original condition could not have been put, and who in addition alters such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured products, or combines the same to produce such finished products for the purpose of their sal e or distribution to others and not for his own use or consumption. XXX SECTION 3A.Ol. Definition s. Wh e n used in this Article : XXX (t) Contractor - includ es person s, natural or juridi ca l, not subj ect to professional (

/he Ci ty or Mako ti represen ted in this case by its City M a yor, l)o ge 10 o f 14 the /ton. .Je jo m or C. l3inoy, the 0 /C Ci ty treasurer, Ne lia A. l3orlis, and /h e 0/C or /he l3usiness lox Division, 1-e/i /o A. M anrique -vs.- Trans-1\sio Power Genera tion Corporation m CTA Case No. 1086 (C TA AC Case No. 87) DECISION ta x who se activity consists esse ntially of the sa le of all kinds of services for a fee regardless of whether or not the performance of the service calls for the exercise or use of the physical or mental faculties of such contractor or his employees. XXX (II) Manufacturer - includes every person who, for the purpose of sale or distribution to others and not for his own use or consumption, by physical or chemical process: (1) alter the exterior texture of form, or inner substance of any raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured product in such manner as to prepare it for a special use or uses to which it co uld not have bee n put in its original condition; (2) alters th e quality of any such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured product so as to reduce it to marketab le shape or prepare it for any use of industry; or (3) co mbin es any raw m at erial or m anufactured or partially manufactured product wit h other materi als or products of the sa m e or different kind in such mann er that th e finished product of such process or manufacture can be put to a special use or uses to which such m ate ri al, or manufactured or partially manufactured product in its original condition could not have been put." Based on the foregoing definitions, We affirm the findings of the Special First Division of this Court in the assailed Decision that respondent's nature of business falls within the category of " manufacturer/producer" and not "contractor" of e lectricity. We quote, to wit: "[T] here is no reason to doubt that respondent' s business operation falls within the purview of a 'manufacturer/p rodu cer'. To stress the obvious, th e ruling of t he RTC on thi s point is hereby quoted with approval, thus: A carefu l ana lysis of th e nature of plaintiff's bu siness in lin e w ith th e defi nition of ' manufacturer/ produ cer' and 'contractor' and th e enumeration of person s and t hin gs t hat fo ll ows after each definition show that plaintiff's bu siness <

tho City of Makoti roprosonlod in this case by its City Mayor, Page I I of 14 tho lion ..Jojomar C. l3inay, tho OIC City lroasuror, Nelia A l3arlis, and /he 0/C or tho l3usinoss lax Division, rolilo A Manrique -vs.- Trans-1\sia Power Genera tion Corporation CT A m Case No. 1086 (CT A AC Case No. 87) DECISION operation falls within the scope of manufacturer/prod ucer and while defendant pressed that plaintiff's business is covered and included under the word 'other co.', the Court disagrees. Under th e principl e of ejusdem generis, where general words follow an enumeration of person and things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned (PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. Court of Appeal s, 297 SCRA 402, 422 citing Republic vs . Migrino, 189 SCRA 289). Thus, in determining th e mean ing of the phrase 'oth er co.' one must refer to prior enumeration of what 'contractor' or kinds of services must it include. Going over the en umeration given under th e t erm 'contractor', it is clea r that plaintiff's business does not fall under such category but rather under the category of 'manufacturer/producer.' (Emphasis sup plied) Petition er's assertion that a scrutiny of the ESA would show that respondent not only supplies electricity to Hi Cement but also manages, operates, maintain s and even repairs the power plant/s of Hi Cement for a fee, hence, it fits the definition of 'co ntractor' under the law also failed to make much impression. It was never disputed that respondent buys bunker fuel as its chief raw material and converts it through m echanical and chemical processes to electricity. Respondent subsequently sells this electricity to Hi Cement by virtue of the ESA. It is also erroneous to say Hi Cement owns the power plant. While Hi Cement initially owned the property where the Power Plant is located, it was later sold to respondent as provid ed under Article 3.1 of the ESA. In fine, respondent owns the Power Plant where the electricity is generated. As th e owner of the Power Plant, respondent needs to manage, operate, maintain, and repair its own Power Plant. The Court as w ell agrees with respondent that th e add itional und ertakings und er the ESA are merely ancillary to a nd in aid of its primary function as a producer of electricity, and are not even services(

Ihe Cily or Makali roproson lod in /his coso by ils Cily M ayor, Page 12 of 14 /he lion . .Jojomar C. 13inay, /he OIC Ci ly lroasuror, Nelia A 13arlis, and /he OIC or /he 13usinoss lax Division, 1-olilo A Manrique -vs.- Trans-1\sia Power Genera tion Corporation CT A m Case No. 1086 (CT A AC Case No. 87) D EC ISIO N rend ered to Hi Cem ent, but rath er are add itiona l und ertakin gs t o ensure th e saf e a nd continuous delivery of th e electri city so ld . An e nt th e Certifi cat e of Regi st ration iss ued by th e BOI, respondent was correct in saying that although th e sa id docum ent classifi ed res pond ent und er th e category of an ' Infrastructure & Service- Oriented Indu st ries', th e said cl assifi cation is not definitive of its rea l bu si ness purpose. In f act, there is nothing in th e document th at explains the cla ssification. It m erely e num erates th e do cume nt s for submi ssion by res po nd ent ."13 However, We do not find the award of attorney 's fees justified in thi s case . As a ru le, no premium should be pla ced o n th e right t o litigate. As a ptly di scussed by th e Supre m e Court in ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Honorable Court of Appeals, et a/., 14 t he powe r of th e co urt t o award attorn ey 's fee s under Article 22 08 of t he Civil Code 15 dem ands factua l, lega l, and equitable justifi cation, t hu s: "As rega rd s at to rn ey 's fees, th e law is clea r that in th e absence of stipul ation, attorney 's f ees may be recovered as actu al or co mpensatory damag es und er any of the circumst ances provid ed for in Articl e 2208 of t he Civ il Code.~ 13 En Bane Docket , pp . 103- 104. 1 G.R. No. 1286 9 0, January 21 , 1999. " ' ~ A RT. 22 08. In t he abse nce of stipu lation, at torn ey's fees and ex penses of lit ig ation, other than judicial costs, ca nnot be recovered, except : 1. Wh en exe mp lary dam ages a re aw arded ; 2. When the defendant's act or omission has compelled t he plaintiff to li t igate wi th third perso ns or to incur ex penses to protect his interest; 3 . In criminal cases o f m alicious prosecution against the plai ntiff; 4. In case of a clea rl y unfounded civ il act ion or proceeding ag ainst the plainti ff ; 5. Wh ere t h e defenda nt acted in g ross and eviden t bad faith in refusin g t o sa tisfy th e plaintiff's p lain ly valid , j ust and dem and able claim ; 6. In actions for lega l suppor t ; 7. In actions fo r the recovery of w ages of h ouse hold helpers, laborers and skilled work ers; 8. I n act io ns for indemnity u nder workm en's co m pensati on and employe r 's liability laws; 9. In a sepa ra te civ il action to recove r civil liabil it y arising from a crim e ;

the City or Makoti represented in /his case by ils Cily Ma yor, l'oge 13 of 14 /he /ton . .Jejomor C. 13inoy, /he OIC C il y treasurer, Ne lia A 13orlis, and /he O IC or /he 13usiness tax Division, t-clilo A Manrique -vs.- Trons-i\sia Power Generation Corporatio n m CTA Case No . 1086 (CTA AC Case No. 87) DECISION The general rule is that attorney's fees cannot be recovered as part of damages because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. They are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. The power of the court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 demands factual, lega l, and equitab le justification . Even when claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still attorney's fees may not be awarded where no sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected in a party's persistence in a case other than erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause. "16 [Emp hasis supp lied.] Under the circumsta nces prevai li ng in the instant case, there is no factua l or lega l basis for an award of attorney 's fees. In fa ct, petition er merely exercised its fu nctio n in classifying respond ent's nature of business based on the documents they have gathered. Contrary to t he assailed Decision, respondent was give n an opportunit y to cha ll enge the said reclassification by fili ng an administrative protest on July 17, 2006 (Exhibit "J") 17 and "Letter Request for Refu nd" on October 13, 2006 (Exh ibit "L") 18 before petitioner. Therefore, the reclassification of respondent's status from "prod ucer " to a "services - other co ." without showing of bad faith or fraud on the part of petitioner does not justify t he award of attorney's fees. WHEREFORE, the petit ion for rev iew is hereby PARTLY GRANTED . The Decision of t he Specia l First Division of this Court in CTA AC Case No . 87 dated July 10, 2013 and its Resolution dated October 23, 2013 are hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION . We DELETE the award of attorney 's fees in favor of respon dent. SO ORDERED. r. iJ~-r-- ~4 rvt ~ Cl~ ffiliTo N . MINDARO- GRULLA Associate Justice 16 !d. 11 RTC Docket, p. 120. 18 Id., at 122- 141.

/he Cily or Makoti represented in /his case by ils Cily Mayor, l'oge 14 o f 14 lhe lion. Jejomor C. l3inoy, lhe OIC Cily treasurer, Nelia A l3orlis. and lhe 0/C or lhe l3usiness tax Division, t-clilo A Manrique -vs. - Trans-1\sia Power Generation Corporation m CTA Case No. 1086 (CTA AC Case No. 87) DECISIO N WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice 0~;4 c . ~o..-r~ '~ lOVEll JtJANITO c. CASTANElfA: .JR. Assoc~te Justice Associate Justice CAESAR~ASANOVA ... Associate Justice ER~.UY Associate Justice . FASON-VICTORINO A~~ a/~-~,..,~ AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice 0/'rf(. ~ .,; t_ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS- liBAN Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation among the members of the Court En Bane before the case was .....a.......s. signed to the writer of the opinion of the Coo-Ft...En Bane. Presiding Justice