1967 / Dec

G.R. No. L-18649 - DECEMBER 1967 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-18649December 29, 1967 Cebu Portland Cement Company, vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-20156December 29, 1967 In the Matter of the Petition of Manuel To, vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20865December 29, 1967 Asela P. Tactaquin, vs. Jose B. Palileo G.R. No. L-20894December 29, 1967 People of the Philippines, vs. Roger M. Pereto, et al. G.R. No. L-21293December 29, 1967 Regino G. Aquizap, vs. Eugenio Basilio, et al. G.R. No. L-21309December 29, 1967 Bernardo Picardal, et al., vs. Cenon Lladas G.R. No. L-21641December 29, 1967 Manuel Ibaviosa, vs. Benigno Tuazon, et al. G.R. No. L-22057December 29, 1967 Romualdo Montesino, et al., vs. Eusebio Rullan, et al. G.R. No. L-22169December 29, 1967 Sergio Alabat, et al., vs. Toribia Tandog Vda. De Alabat, et al. G.R. No. L-23405December 29, 1967 People of the Philippines, vs. Domingo Bato G.R. No. L-23504December 29, 1967 Alberto De Joya, et al., vs. Juan T. David, et al. G.R. No. L-23773-74December 29, 1967 Francisco Pineda, et al., vs. Pastor De Guzman, et al. G.R. No. L-23886December 29, 1967 Francisco Periquet, et al., vs. Andres Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-28328December 29, 1967 Nicanor C. Ibuna, vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-28340December 29, 1967 Joseph Ejercito Estrada, vs. Hon. Pedro C. Navarro, et al. G.R. No. L-28374December 29, 1967 Joseph Ejercito Estrada, vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-28396December 29, 1967 Agripino Demafiles, vs. Commission On Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-28206December 28, 1967 Priscilo G. Inting, vs. Zoila L. Clarin G.R. No. L-28349December 28, 1967 Consuelo V. Calo, et al., vs. Hon. Manuel L. Enage, et al. G.R. No. L-21150December 26, 1967 Amado Cayanan, et al., vs. Leon De Los Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-21577December 26, 1967 Remedios C. Ledesma, vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-22022December 26, 1967 Emiliano T. Ramirez, vs. Jose Sy Chit G.R. No. L-22517December 26, 1967 People of the Philippines, vs. Getulio Verzo, et al. G.R. No. L-23135December 26, 1967 Testate Estate of Hilarion Ramagosa. Mariano Sumilang, vs. Saturnina Ramagosa, et al. G.R. No. L-23764December 26, 1967 Juan Sumerariz, et al., vs. Development Bank Of The Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-23887December 26, 1967 Ago Timber Corporation, vs. Hon. Jesus S. Ruiz, et al. G.R. No. L-23986December 26, 1967 Ernesto Del Rosario, et al., vs. Hon. Jacinto Callanta, et al. G.R. No. L-24200December 26, 1967 Elizalde and Co., Inc., vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-26947December 26, 1967 Caltex (Philippines) Inc., vs. Customs Arastre Service, et al. G.R. No. L-28359December 26, 1967 Abdullah Sangki, vs. Commission On Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-28395December 26, 1967 Lilia Peña, et al., vs. Hon. Damaso S. Tengco, et al. G.R. No. L-22265December 22, 1967 Collector of Internal Revenue,, vs. Goodrich International Rubber Co. G.R. No. L-22512December 22, 1967 Andres E. Lazaro, vs. Commissioner of Customs G.R. No. L-22514December 22, 1967 Andres E. Lazaro, vs. Commissioner of Customs G.R. No. L-22269December 20, 1967 Amando Anonuevo, et al., vs. Alberto Anonuevo, et al. G.R. No. L-23661December 20, 1967 Jose Manangol Bartolome, et al., vs. Justo Bartolome G.R. No. L-24572December 20, 1967 Philippine Postal Savings Bank, et al., vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-23191December 19, 1967 Geronimo G. Esguerra, et al., vs. Hon. Felipe M. Villanueva, et al. A.C. No. 546December 18, 1967 In the Matter of the Disbarment of Dominador E. Flores, vs. Luis R. Lozada G.R. No. L-17587December 18, 1967 Philippine Banking Corporation, et al., vs. Lui She G.R. No. L-21422December 18, 1967 In Re: Chua Tiong Seng, vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-22585December 18, 1967 Nicanor. B. Pagkalinawan, vs. Hon. Amador E. Gomez, et al. G.R. No. L-22753December 18, 1967 Jesus Ramos, et al., vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-23220December 18, 1967 Ciriaco Ingco, vs. Benedicto M. Sanchez, et al. G.R. No. L-23699December 18, 1967 Juanito Chan, vs. Gregorio B. Montejo, et al. G.R. No. L-24510 & L-24525December 18, 1967 Hon. Martiniano P. Vivo, et al., vs. Hon. Jesus P. Morfe, et al. G.R. No. L-27876December 18, 1967 Pastora Gaspay, et al., vs. Hon. Cesar Sangco, et al. G.R. No. L-21441December 15, 1967 Rural Transit Employees Association, et al., vs. Bachrach Transportation Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-28348December 15, 1967 Bernardino Abes, et al., vs. Commission on Election, et al. G.R. No. L-18857December 11, 1967 Capital Insurance and Surety Co., vs. Esteban M. Sadang, et al. G.R. No. L-21520December 11, 1967 Plaridel Surety and Insurance Company, vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-21616December 11, 1967 Gertrudes F. Cuaycong, et al., vs. Luis D. Cuaycong, et al. G.R. No. L-21849December 11, 1967 Lourdes Vda. De Magalona, vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-22325December 11, 1967 Corazon M. Espino, vs. Hon. Calixto Zaldivar, et al. G.R. No. L-22471December 11, 1967 People of the Philippines, vs. Solomon A. Lizardo G.R. No. L-23508December 11, 1967 People of the Philippines, vs. Nelly P. Cortez G.R. No. L-23817December 11, 1967 Francisca Lazo, vs. J. M. Tuason And Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-24221December 11, 1967 Commissioner of Internal Revenue, vs. Insular Lumber Company, et al. G.R. No. L-24521December 11, 1967 Edilberto M. Ramos, vs. Hon. Ramon A. Diaz, et al. G.R. No. L-25245December 11, 1967 Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines, vs. Mauricio Alillana, et al. G.R. No. L-28358December 8, 1967 Julian G. Ginete, vs. Hon. Ubaldo Arcangel, et al. G.R. No. L-28315December 8, 1967 Ambrosio Janairo, et al., vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-15829December 4, 1967 Roman R. Santos, vs. Florencio Moreno, et al. G.R. No. L-24717December 4, 1967 J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., vs. Guillermo E. Torres, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Cebu Portland Cement Company, vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue In the Matter of the Petition of Manuel To, vs. Republic of the Philippines Asela P. Tactaquin, vs. Jose B. Palileo People of the Philippines, vs. Roger M. Pereto, et al. Regino G. Aquizap, vs. Eugenio Basilio, et al. Bernardo Picardal, et al., vs. Cenon Lladas Manuel Ibaviosa, vs. Benigno Tuazon, et al. Romualdo Montesino, et al., vs. Eusebio Rullan, et al. Sergio Alabat, et al., vs. Toribia Tandog Vda. De Alabat, et al. People of the Philippines, vs. Domingo Bato Alberto De Joya, et al., vs. Juan T. David, et al. Francisco Pineda, et al., vs. Pastor De Guzman, et al. Francisco Periquet, et al., vs. Andres Reyes, et al. Nicanor C. Ibuna, vs. Commission on Elections, et al. Joseph Ejercito Estrada, vs. Hon. Pedro C. Navarro, et al. Joseph Ejercito Estrada, vs. Commission on Elections, et al. Agripino Demafiles, vs. Commission On Elections, et al. Priscilo G. Inting, vs. Zoila L. Clarin Consuelo V. Calo, et al., vs. Hon. Manuel L. Enage, et al. Amado Cayanan, et al., vs. Leon De Los Santos, et al. Remedios C. Ledesma, vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Emiliano T. Ramirez, vs. Jose Sy Chit People of the Philippines, vs. Getulio Verzo, et al. Testate Estate of Hilarion Ramagosa. Mariano Sumilang, vs. Saturnina Ramagosa, et al. Juan Sumerariz, et al., vs. Development Bank Of The Philippines, et al. Ago Timber Corporation, vs. Hon. Jesus S. Ruiz, et al. Ernesto Del Rosario, et al., vs. Hon. Jacinto Callanta, et al. Elizalde and Co., Inc., vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. Caltex (Philippines) Inc., vs. Customs Arastre Service, et al. Abdullah Sangki, vs. Commission On Elections, et al. Lilia Peña, et al., vs. Hon. Damaso S. Tengco, et al. Collector of Internal Revenue,, vs. Goodrich International Rubber Co. Andres E. Lazaro, vs. Commissioner of Customs Andres E. Lazaro, vs. Commissioner of Customs Amando Anonuevo, et al., vs. Alberto Anonuevo, et al. Jose Manangol Bartolome, et al., vs. Justo Bartolome Philippine Postal Savings Bank, et al., vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Geronimo G. Esguerra, et al., vs. Hon. Felipe M. Villanueva, et al. In the Matter of the Disbarment of Dominador E. Flores, vs. Luis R. Lozada Philippine Banking Corporation, et al., vs. Lui She In Re: Chua Tiong Seng, vs. Republic of the Philippines Nicanor. B. Pagkalinawan, vs. Hon. Amador E. Gomez, et al. Jesus Ramos, et al., vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Ciriaco Ingco, vs. Benedicto M. Sanchez, et al. Juanito Chan, vs. Gregorio B. Montejo, et al. Hon. Martiniano P. Vivo, et al., vs. Hon. Jesus P. Morfe, et al. Pastora Gaspay, et al., vs. Hon. Cesar Sangco, et al. Rural Transit Employees Association, et al., vs. Bachrach Transportation Co., Inc., et al. Bernardino Abes, et al., vs. Commission on Election, et al. Capital Insurance and Surety Co., vs. Esteban M. Sadang, et al. Plaridel Surety and Insurance Company, vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Gertrudes F. Cuaycong, et al., vs. Luis D. Cuaycong, et al. Lourdes Vda. De Magalona, vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Corazon M. Espino, vs. Hon. Calixto Zaldivar, et al. People of the Philippines, vs. Solomon A. Lizardo People of the Philippines, vs. Nelly P. Cortez Francisca Lazo, vs. J. M. Tuason And Co., Inc., et al. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, vs. Insular Lumber Company, et al. Edilberto M. Ramos, vs. Hon. Ramon A. Diaz, et al. Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines, vs. Mauricio Alillana, et al. Julian G. Ginete, vs. Hon. Ubaldo Arcangel, et al. Ambrosio Janairo, et al., vs. Commission on Elections, et al. Roman R. Santos, vs. Florencio Moreno, et al. J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., vs. Guillermo E. Torres, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-18649 December 29, 1967

CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY,petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,respondent.

The Government Corporate Counsel for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent.
Rogelio M. Jalandoni as Amicus Curiae.

R E S O L U T I O N

REYES, J.B.L.,J.:

Petitioner-appellant, Commissioner of Internal Revenue has sought reconsideration of our main decision in the above entitled case, claiming that this Court has misconstrued the issues involved in this case, and that instead of resolving what is the market value upon which should be based thead valoremtax imposed by section 246 of the Internal Revenue Code, as said section was amended by Republic Act 1299, in force since June 16, 1955, this Court decided the case "on an issue that was not raised by them" by ruling "that cement is not a mineral product but a manufactured product, and as such it is not subject to thead valoremtax" (Motion for Reconsideration, p. 6).1awphil.netThe appellant Commissioner therefore prays that this Court declare:

(1) That cement is a mineral product subject to 1 1/2%ad valoremtax based on its selling price; or

(2) In the alternative that the sales of cement by appellee Cebu Portland Cement Company are subject to sales tax of 7%.

The reconsideration must be denied. The appellant Commissioner of Internal Revenue has plainly misconstrued the language and import of our main decision. We there stated the issue to be as follows:

Herein petitioner¹contends that the collectiblead valoremtax should be based on the actual market value of the quarried minerals that were used in the production of cement; whereas, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue maintains that, as the cement produced by petitioner consists of minerals, the same is a mineral produce pursuant to the definition given in Section 246 of the Tax Code and thead valoremtax should be based on its selling price.itc-alf

And we sustained the position of the cement company, i.e. that thead valoremtax in question should be based on the actual market value of thequarried mineralsused in producing cement, reasoning that cement (as distinguished from the original minerals used to produce it) is the result of a process, and that the same "Could not have been thestateof mineral products contemplated by the law" for the purpose of imposing thead valoremtax. The necessary corollary of this pronouncement is that the law intended to impose thead valoremtax upon the market value of the component mineral products in theiroriginal statebeforeprocessinginto cement. For it can not be overlooked that the law does not impose a tax on cementqua cement, but on mineral products, at least 80% of which must be minerals extracted by the lessee, concessionaire or owner of mineral lands. Both parties concede that cement is made up of 80% or more of minerals thus extracted.

The Court did not, and could not, rule that cement is a manufactured product subject to sales tax, for the reason that such liability had never been litigated by the parties. What it did declare is that, while cement is a mineral product, it is no longer in the state or condition contemplated by the law; hence the market value of the cement could not be the basis for computing thead valoremtax, since thead valoremtax is a severance tax, i. e., a charge upon the privilege of severing or extracting minerals from the earth, (Dec. p. 4) and is due and payableupon removalof the mineral product from its bed or mine (Tax Code s. 245). So that the tax is to be computed on the basis of the market value of the mineral in its condition at the time of such removal and before its being substantially changed by chemical or manufacturing (as distinguished from purely physical) processing.1awphil.netWhatever mention was made in the decision of such process undergone by the component minerals of cement, was made solely and exclusively to emphasize the change in the condition of the minerals, from the primitive state contemplated by the taxing statute. This is clear from the text of the decision (pp. 4-5) where we stated:lawphil.net

This (respondent's) line of argument suffers from two infirmities. First,while cementiscomposed of 80% minerals, it is not merely an admixture or blending of raw materials, as lime, silica, shale and others. It is the result of a definite process — the crushing of minerals, grinding, mixing, calcining cooling, adding of retarder or raw gypsum. In short, before cement reaches its salable form, the minerals had already undergone a chemical change through manufacturing process.This could not have been the state of mineral products that the law contemplatesfor purposes of thead valoremtax. (Emphasis supplied.)

WHEREFORE, all motions for reconsideration are denied. So ordered.1awphil.net

Concepcion, C.J., Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ.,concur.

Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., took no part.

Footnotes

¹Evidently referring to the original petitioner Cebu Portland Cement Co.