G.R. No. 99886 March 31, 1993JOHN H. OSMEÑA, petitioner, vs.OSCAR ORBOS, in his capacity as Executive Secretary; JESUS ESTANISLAO, in his capacity as Secretary of Finance; WENCESLAO DELA PAZ, in his capacity as Head of the Office of Energy Affairs; REX V. TANTIONGCO, and the ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, respondents.NARVASA, C.J.:The petitioner seeks the corrective, 1 prohibitive and coercive remedies provided by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,2 upon the following posited grounds, viz.: 3

1) the invalidity of the "TRUST ACCOUNT" in the books of account of the Ministry of Energy (now, the Office of Energy Affairs), created pursuant to § 8, paragraph 1, of P.D. No. 1956, as amended, "said creation of a trust fund being contrary to Section 29 (3), Article VI of the . . Constitution; 4

2) the unconstitutionality of § 8, paragraph 1 (c) of P.D. No. 1956, as amended by Executive Order No. 137, for "being an undue and invalid delegation of legislative power . . to the Energy Regulatory Board;" 5

3) the illegality of the reimbursements to oil companies, paid out of the Oil Price Stabilization Fund, 6 because it contravenes § 8, paragraph 2 (2) ofP. D. 1956, as amended; and4) the consequent nullity of the Order dated December 10, 1990 and the necessity of a rollback of the pump prices and petroleum products to the levels prevailing prior to the said Order.It will be recalled that on October 10, 1984, President Ferdinand Marcos issued P.D. 1956 creating a Special Account in the General Fund, designated as the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF). The OPSF was designed to reimburse oil companies for cost increases in crude oil and imported petroleum products resulting from exchange rate adjustments and from increases in the world market prices of crude oil.Subsequently, the OPSF was reclassified into a "trust liability account," in virtue of E.O. 1024, 7 and ordered released from the National Treasury to the Ministry of Energy. The same Executive Order also authorized the investment of the fund in government securities, with the earnings from such placements accruing to the fund.President Corazon C. Aquino, amended P.D. 1956. She promulgated Executive Order No. 137 on February 27, 1987, expanding the grounds for reimbursement to oil companies for possible cost underrecovery incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products, the amount of the underrecovery being left for determination by the Ministry of Finance.Now, the petition alleges that the status of the OPSF as of March 31, 1991 showed a "Terminal Fund Balance

deficit" of some P12.877 billion; 8 that to abate the worsening deficit, "the Energy Regulatory Board . . issued an Order on December 10, 1990, approving the increase in pump prices of petroleum products," and at the rate of recoupment, the OPSF deficit should have been fully covered in a span of six (6) months, but this notwithstanding, the respondents — Oscar Orbos, in his capacity as Executive Secretary; Jesus Estanislao, in his capacity as Secretary of Finance; Wenceslao de la Paz, in his capacity as Head of the Office of Energy Affairs; Chairman Rex V. Tantiongco and the Energy Regulatory Board — "are poised to accept, process and pay claims not authorized under P.D. 1956." 9

The petition further avers that the creation of the trust fund violates §29(3), Article VI of the Constitution, reading as follows:

(3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for such purposes only. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government.

The petitioner argues that "the monies collected pursuant to . . P.D. 1956, as amended, must be treated as a 'SPECIAL FUND,' not as a 'trust account' or a 'trust fund,' and that "if a special tax is collected for a specific purpose, the revenue generated therefrom shall 'be treated as a special fund' to be used only for the purpose indicated, and not channeled to another government objective." 10 Petitioner further points out that since "a 'special fund' consists of monies collected through the taxing power of a State, such amounts belong to the State, although the use thereof is limited to the special purpose/objective for which it was created." 11

He also contends that the "delegation of legislative authority" to the ERB violates § 28 (2). Article VI of the Constitution, viz.:

(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix, within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government;

and, inasmuch as the delegation relates to the exercise of the power of taxation, "the limits, limitations and restrictions must be quantitative, that is, the law must not only specify how to tax, who (shall) be taxed (and) what the tax is for,

1

but also impose a specific limit on how much to tax." 12

The petitioner does not suggest that a "trust account" is illegal per se, but maintains that the monies collected, which form part of the OPSF, should be maintained in a special account of the general fund for the reason that the Constitution so provides, and because they are, supposedly, taxes levied for a special purpose. He assumes that the Fund is formed from a tax undoubtedly because a portion thereof is taken from collections of ad valorem taxes and the increases thereon.It thus appears that the challenge posed by the petitioner is premised primarily on the view that the powers granted to the ERB under P.D. 1956, as amended, partake of the nature of the taxation power of the State. The Solicitor General observes that the "argument rests on the assumption that the OPSF is a form of revenue measure drawing from a special tax to be expended for a special purpose." 13 The petitioner's perceptions are, in the Court's view, not quite correct.To address this critical misgiving in the position of the petitioner on these issues, the Court recalls its holding inValmonte v. Energy Regulatory Board, et al. 14 —

The foregoing arguments suggest the presence of misconceptions about the nature and functions of the OPSF. The OPSF is a "Trust Account" which was established "for the purpose of minimizing the frequent price changes brought about by exchange rate adjustment and/or changes in world market prices of crude oil and imported petroleum products." 15 Under P.D. No. 1956, as amended by Executive Order No. 137 dated 27 February 1987, this Trust Account may be funded from any of the following sources:

a) Any increase in the tax collection from ad valorem tax or customs duty imposed on petroleum products subject to tax under this Decree arising from exchange rate adjustment, as may be determined by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Board of Energy;

b) Any increase in the tax collection as a result of the lifting of tax exemptions of government corporations, as may be determined by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Board of Energy:

c) Any additional amount to be imposed on petroleum products to augment the resources of the Fund

through an appropriate Order that may be issued by the Board of Energy requiring payment of persons or companies engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing and/or marketing petroleum products;

d) Any resulting peso cost differentials in case the actual peso costs paid by oil companies in the importation of crude oil and petroleum products is less than the peso costs computed using the reference foreign exchange rate as fixed by the Board of Energy.

xxx xxx xxxThe fact that the world market prices of

oil, measured by the spot market in Rotterdam, vary from day to day is of judicial notice. Freight rates for hauling crude oil and petroleum products from sources of supply to the Philippines may also vary from time to time. The exchange rate of the peso vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar and other convertible foreign currencies also changes from day to day. These fluctuations in world market prices and in tanker rates and foreign exchange rates would in a completely free market translate into corresponding adjustments in domestic prices of oil and petroleum products with sympathetic frequency. But domestic prices which vary from day to day or even only from week to week would result in a chaotic market with unpredictable effects upon the country's economy in general. The OPSF was established precisely to protect local consumers from the adverse consequences that such frequent oil price adjustments may have upon the economy. Thus, the OPSF serves as a pocket, as it were, into which a portion of the purchase price of oil and petroleum products paid by consumers as well as some tax revenues are inputted and from which amounts are drawn from time to time to reimburse oil companies, when appropriate situations arise, for increases in, as well as underrecovery of, costs of crude importation. The OPSF is thus a buffer mechanism through which the domestic consumer prices of oil and petroleum products are stabilized, instead of fluctuating every so often, and oil companies are allowed to recover those portions of their costs which they would not otherwise recover given the level of domestic prices existing at any given time.To the extent that some tax revenues are also put into

2

it, the OPSF is in effect a device through which the domestic prices of petroleum products are subsidized in part. It appears to the Court that the establishment and maintenance of the OPSF is well within that pervasive and non-waivable power and responsibility of the government to secure the physical and economic survival and well-being of the community, that comprehensive sovereign authority we designate as the police power of the State. The stabilization, and subsidy of domestic prices of petroleum products and fuel oil — clearly critical in importance considering, among other things, the continuing high level of dependence of the country on imported crude oil — are appropriately regarded as public purposes.

Also of relevance is this Court's ruling in relation to the sugar stabilization fund the nature of which is not far different from the OPSF. In Gaston v. Republic Planters Bank, 16 this Court upheld the legality of the sugar stabilization fees and explained their nature and character, viz.:

The stabilization fees collected are in the nature of a tax, which is within the power of the State to impose for the promotion of the sugar industry (Lutz v. Araneta, 98 Phil. 148). . . . The tax collected is not in a pure exercise of the taxing power. It is levied with a regulatory purpose, to provide a means for the stabilization of the sugar industry. The levy is primarily in the exercise of the police power of the State (Lutz v. Araneta, supra).

xxx xxx xxxThe stabilization fees in question are levied by the State upon sugar millers, planters and producers for a special purpose — that of "financing the growth and development of the sugar industry and all its components, stabilization of the domestic market including the foreign market." The fact that the State has taken possession of moneys pursuant to law is sufficient to constitute them state funds, even though they are held for a special purpose (Lawrence v. American Surety Co. 263 Mich. 586, 249 ALR 535, cited in 42 Am Jur Sec. 2, p. 718). Having been levied for a special purpose, the revenues collected are to be treated as a special fund, to be, in the language of the statute, "administered in trust" for the purpose

intended. Once the purpose has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance if any, is to be transferred to the general funds of the Government. That is the essence of the trust intended (SEE 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Sec. 29(3), lifted from the 1935 Constitution, Article VI, Sec. 23(1). 17

The character of the Stabilization Fund as a special kind of fund is emphasized by the fact that the funds are deposited in the Philippine National Bank and not in the Philippine Treasury, moneys from which may be paid out only in pursuance of an appropriation made by law (1987) Constitution, Article VI, Sec. 29 (3), lifted from the 1935 Constitution, Article VI, Sec. 23(1). (Emphasis supplied).

Hence, it seems clear that while the funds collected may be referred to as taxes, they are exacted in the exercise of the police power of the State. Moreover, that the OPSF is a special fund is plain from the special treatment given it by E.O. 137. It is segregated from the general fund; and while it is placed in what the law refers to as a "trust liability account," the fund nonetheless remains subject to the scrutiny and review of the COA. The Court is satisfied that these measures comply with the constitutional description of a "special fund." Indeed, the practice is not without precedent.With regard to the alleged undue delegation of legislative power, the Court finds that the provision conferring the authority upon the ERB to impose additional amounts on petroleum products provides a sufficient standard by which the authority must be exercised. In addition to the general policy of the law to protect the local consumer by stabilizing and subsidizing domestic pump rates, § 8(c) of P.D. 1956 18 expressly authorizes the ERB to impose additional amounts to augment the resources of the Fund.What petitioner would wish is the fixing of some definite, quantitative restriction, or "a specific limit on how much to tax." 19 The Court is cited to this requirement by the petitioner on the premise that what is involved here is the power of taxation; but as already discussed, this is not the case. What is here involved is not so much the power of taxation as police power. Although the provision authorizing the ERB to impose additional amounts could be construed to refer to the power of taxation, it cannot be overlooked that the overriding consideration is to enable the delegate to act with expediency in carrying out the objectives of the law which are embraced by the police power of the State.

3

The interplay and constant fluctuation of the various factors involved in the determination of the price of oil and petroleum products, and the frequently shifting need to either augment or exhaust the Fund, do not conveniently permit the setting of fixed or rigid parameters in the law as proposed by the petitioner. To do so would render the ERB unable to respond effectively so as to mitigate or avoid the undesirable consequences of such fluidity. As such, the standard as it is expressed, suffices to guide the delegate in the exercise of the delegated power, taking account of the circumstances under which it is to be exercised.For a valid delegation of power, it is essential that the law delegating the power must be (1) complete in itself, that is it must set forth the policy to be executed by the delegate and (2) it must fix a standard — limits of whichare sufficiently determinate or determinable — to which the delegate must conform. 20

. . . As pointed out in Edu v. Ericta: "To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard, which implies at the very least that the legislature itself determines matters of principle and lays down fundamental policy. Otherwise, the charge of complete abdication may be hard to repel. A standard thus defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. It is the criterion by which the legislative purpose may be carried out. Thereafter, the executive or administrative office designated may in pursuance of the above guidelines promulgate supplemental rules and regulations. The standard may either be express or implied. If the former, the non-delegation objection is easily met. The standard though does not have to be spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the policy and purpose of the act considered as a whole. 21

It would seem that from the above-quoted ruling, the petition for prohibition should fail.The standard, as the Court has already stated, may even be implied. In that light, there can be no ground upon which to sustain the petition, inasmuch as the challenged law sets forth a determinable standard which guides the exercise of the power granted to the ERB. By the same token, the proper exercise of the delegated power may be tested with ease. It seems obvious that what the law intended was to permit the additional imposts for as long as there exists a need to protect the general public and the petroleum industry from the adverse consequences of pump rate fluctuations. "Where the standards set up for the guidance of an

administrative officer and the action taken are in fact recorded in the orders of such officer, so that Congress, the courts and the public are assured that the orders in the judgment of such officer conform to the legislative standard, there is no failure in the performance of the legislative functions." 22

This Court thus finds no serious impediment to sustaining the validity of the legislation; the express purpose for which the imposts are permitted and the general objectives and purposes of the fund are readily discernible, and they constitute a sufficient standard upon which the delegation of power may be justified.In relation to the third question — respecting the illegality of the reimbursements to oil companies, paid out of the Oil Price Stabilization Fund, because allegedly in contravention of § 8, paragraph 2 (2) of P.D. 1956, amended 23— the Court finds for the petitioner.The petition assails the payment of certain items or accounts in favor of the petroleum companies (i.e., inventory losses, financing charges, fuel oil sales to the National Power Corporation, etc.) because not authorized by law. Petitioner contends that "these claims are not embraced in the enumeration in § 8 of P.D. 1956 . . since none of them was incurred 'as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products,'" 24 and since these items are reimbursements for which the OPSF should not have responded, the amount of the P12.877 billion deficit "should be reduced by P5,277.2 million." 25 It is argued "that under the principle of ejusdem generis . . . the term 'other factors' (as used in § 8 of P.D. 1956) . . can only include such 'other factors' which necessarily result in the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products." 26

The Solicitor General, for his part, contends that "(t)o place said (term) within the restrictive confines of the rule ofejusdem generis would reduce (E.O. 137) to a meaningless provision."This Court, in Caltex Philippines, Inc. v. The Honorable Commissioner on Audit, et al., 27 passed upon the application of ejusdem generis to paragraph 2 of § 8 of P.D. 1956, viz.:

The rule of ejusdem generis states that "[w]here words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are held to be as applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned." 28A reading of subparagraphs (i) and (ii) easily discloses that they do not have a common characteristic. The first relates to price reduction as directed by the Board of Energy while the second refers to reduction in internal ad valorem taxes. Therefore,

4

subparagraph (iii) cannot be limited by the enumeration in these subparagraphs. What should be considered for purposes of determining the "other factors" in subparagraph (iii) is the first sentence of paragraph (2) of the Section which explicitly allows the cost underrecovery only if such were incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products.

The Court thus holds, that the reimbursement of financing charges is not authorized by paragraph 2 of § 8 of P.D. 1956, for the reason that they were not incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products. Under the same provision, however, the payment of inventory losses is upheld as valid, being clearly a result of domestic price reduction, when oil companies incur a cost underrecovery for yet unsold stocks of oil in inventory acquired at a higher price.Reimbursement for cost underrecovery from the sales of oil to the National Power Corporation is equally permissible, not as coming within the provisions of P.D. 1956, but in virtue of other laws and regulations as held inCaltex 29 and which have been pointed to by the Solicitor General. At any rate, doubts about the propriety of such reimbursements have been dispelled by the enactment of R.A. 6952, establishing the Petroleum Price Standby Fund, § 2 of which specifically authorizes the reimbursement of "cost underrecovery incurred as a result of fuel oil sales to the National Power Corporation."Anent the overpayment refunds mentioned by the petitioner, no substantive discussion has been presented to show how this is prohibited by P.D. 1956. Nor has the Solicitor General taken any effort to defend the propriety of this refund. In fine, neither of the parties, beyond the mere mention of overpayment refunds, has at all bothered to discuss the arguments for or against the legality of the so-called overpayment refunds. To be sure, the absence of any argument for or against the validity of the refund cannot result in its disallowance by the Court. Unless the impropriety or illegality of the overpayment refund has been clearly and specifically shown, there can be no basis upon which to nullify the same.Finally, the Court finds no necessity to rule on the remaining issue, the same having been rendered moot and academic. As of date hereof, the pump rates of gasoline have been reduced to levels below even those prayed for in the petition.WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED insofar as it prays for the nullification of the reimbursement of financing charges, paid pursuant to E.O. 137, and DISMISSED in all other respects.SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 92585 May 8, 1992CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs.THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, HONORABLE COMMISSIONER BARTOLOME C. FERNANDEZ and HONORABLE COMMISSIONER ALBERTO P. CRUZ, respondents. DAVIDE, JR., J.:This is a petition erroneously brought under Rule 44 of the Rules of Court 1 questioning the authority of the Commission on Audit (COA) in disallowing petitioner's claims for reimbursement from the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) and seeking the reversal of said Commission's decision denying its claims for recovery of financing charges from the Fund and reimbursement of underrecovery arising from sales to the National Power Corporation, Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation (ATLAS) and Marcopper Mining Corporation (MAR-COPPER), preventing it from exercising the right to offset its remittances against its reimbursement vis-a-vis the OPSF and disallowing its claims which are still pending resolution before the Office of Energy Affairs (OEA) and the Department of Finance (DOF).Pursuant to the 1987 Constitution, 2 any decision, order or ruling of the Constitutional Commissions 3 may be brought to this Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy thereof. Thecertiorari referred to is the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 4

Considering, however, that the allegations that the COA acted with: (a) total lack of jurisdiction in completely ignoring and showing absolutely no respect for the findings and rulings of the administrator of the fund itself and in disallowing a claim which is still pending resolution at the OEA level, and (b) "grave abuse of discretion and completely without jurisdiction" 5 in declaring that petitioner cannot avail of the right to offset any amount that it may be required under the law to remit to the OPSF against any amount that it may receive by way of reimbursement therefrom are sufficient to bring this petition within Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and, considering further the importance of the issues raised, the error in the designation of the remedy pursued will, in this instance, be excused.The issues raised revolve around the OPSF created under Section 8 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1956, as amended by Executive Order (E.O.) No. 137. As amended, said Section 8 reads as follows:

Sec. 8 . There is hereby created a Trust Account in the books of accounts of the Ministry of Energy to be designated as

5

Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) for the purpose of minimizing frequent price changes brought about by exchange rate adjustments and/or changes in world market prices of crude oil and imported petroleum products. The Oil Price Stabilization Fund may be sourced from any of the following:

a) Any increase in the tax collection from ad valorem tax or customs duty imposed on petroleum products subject to tax under this Decree arising from exchange rate adjustment, as may be determined by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Board of Energy;

b) Any increase in the tax collection as a result of the lifting of tax exemptions of government corporations, as may be determined by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Board of Energy;

c) Any additional amount to be imposed on petroleum products to augment the resources of the Fund through an appropriate Order that may be issued by the Board of Energy requiring payment by persons or companies engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing and/or marketing petroleum products;

d) Any resulting peso cost differentials in case the actual peso costs paid by oil companies in the importation of crude oil and petroleum products is less than the peso costs computed using the reference foreign exchange rate as fixed by the Board of Energy.The Fund herein created shall be used for the following:1) To reimburse the oil companies for cost increases in crude oil and imported petroleum products resulting from exchange rate adjustment and/or increase in world market prices of crude oil;2) To reimburse the oil companies for possible cost under-recovery incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products. The magnitude of the underrecovery, if any, shall be determined by the Ministry of

Finance. "Cost underrecovery" shall include the following:

i. Reduction in oil company take as directed by the Board of Energy without the corresponding reduction in the landed cost of oil inventories in the possession of the oil companies at the time of the price change;

ii. Reduction in internal ad valorem taxes as a result of foregoing government mandated price reductions;

iii. Other factors as may be determined by the Ministry of Finance to result in cost underrecovery.

The Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) shall be administered by the Ministry of Energy.

The material operative facts of this case, as gathered from the pleadings of the parties, are not disputed.On 2 February 1989, the COA sent a letter to Caltex Philippines, Inc. (CPI), hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, directing the latter to remit to the OPSF its collection, excluding that unremitted for the years 1986 and 1988, of the additional tax on petroleum products authorized under the aforesaid Section 8 of P.D. No. 1956 which, as of 31 December 1987, amounted to P335,037,649.00 and informing it that, pending such remittance, all of its claims for reimbursement from the OPSF shall be held in abeyance. 6

On 9 March 1989, the COA sent another letter to petitioner informing it that partial verification with the OEA showed that the grand total of its unremitted collections of the above tax is P1,287,668,820.00, broken down as follows:1986 — P233,190,916.001987 — 335,065,650.001988 — 719,412,254.00;directing it to remit the same, with interest and surcharges thereon, within sixty (60) days from receipt of the letter; advising it that the COA will hold in abeyance the audit of all its claims for reimbursement from the OPSF; and directing it to desist from further offsetting the taxes collected against outstanding claims in 1989 and subsequent periods. 7

In its letter of 3 May 1989, petitioner requested the COA for an early release of its reimbursement certificates from the OPSF covering claims with the Office of Energy Affairs since June 1987 up to March 1989, invoking in support thereof COA Circular No. 89-299 on the lifting of pre-audit of government transactions of national

6

government agencies and government-owned or controlled corporations. 8In its Answer dated 8 May 1989, the COA denied petitioner's request for the early release of the reimbursement certificates from the OPSF and repeated its earlier directive to petitioner to forward payment of the latter's unremitted collections to the OPSF to facilitate COA's audit action on the reimbursement claims. 9

By way of a reply, petitioner, in a letter dated 31 May 1989, submitted to the COA a proposal for the payment of the collections and the recovery of claims, since the outright payment of the sum of P1.287 billion to the OEA as a prerequisite for the processing of said claims against the OPSF will cause a very serious impairment of its cash position. 10 The proposal reads:

We, therefore, very respectfully propose the following:(1) Any procedural arrangement acceptable to COA to facilitate monitoring of payments and reimbursements will be administered by the ERB/Finance Dept./OEA, as agencies designated by law to administer/regulate OPSF.(2) For the retroactive period, Caltex will deliver to OEA, P1.287 billion as payment to OPSF, similarly OEA will deliver to Caltex the same amount in cash reimbursement from OPSF.(3) The COA audit will commence immediately and will be conducted expeditiously.(4) The review of current claims (1989) will be conducted expeditiously to preclude further accumulation of reimbursement from OPSF.

On 7 June 1989, the COA, with the Chairman taking no part, handed down Decision No. 921 accepting the above-stated proposal but prohibiting petitioner from further offsetting remittances and reimbursements for the current and ensuing years. 11 Decision No. 921 reads:

This pertains to the within separate requests of Mr. Manuel A. Estrella, President, Petron Corporation, and Mr. Francis Ablan, President and Managing Director, Caltex (Philippines) Inc., for reconsideration of this Commission's adverse action embodied in its letters dated February 2, 1989 and March 9, 1989, the former directing immediate remittance to the Oil Price Stabilization Fund of collections made by the firms pursuant to P.D. 1956, as amended by E.O. No. 137, S. 1987, and the latter

reiterating the same directive but further advising the firms to desist from offsetting collections against their claims with the notice that "this Commission will hold in abeyance the audit of all . . . claims for reimbursement from the OPSF."It appears that under letters of authority issued by the Chairman, Energy Regulatory Board, the aforenamed oil companies were allowed to offset the amounts due to the Oil Price Stabilization Fund against their outstanding claims from the said Fund for the calendar years 1987 and 1988, pending with the then Ministry of Energy, the government entity charged with administering the OPSF. This Commission, however, expressing serious doubts as to the propriety of the offsetting of all types of reimbursements from the OPSF against all categories of remittances, advised these oil companies that such offsetting was bereft of legal basis. Aggrieved thereby, these companies now seek reconsideration and in support thereof clearly manifest their intent to make arrangements for the remittance to the Office of Energy Affairs of the amount of collections equivalent to what has been previously offset, provided that this Commission authorizes the Office of Energy Affairs to prepare the corresponding checks representing reimbursement from the OPSF. It is alleged that the implementation of such an arrangement, whereby the remittance of collections due to the OPSF and the reimbursement of claims from the Fund shall be made within a period of not more than one week from each other, will benefit the Fund and not unduly jeopardize the continuing daily cash requirements of these firms.Upon a circumspect evaluation of the circumstances herein obtaining, this Commission perceives no further objectionable feature in the proposed arrangement, provided that 15% of whatever amount is due from the Fund is retained by the Office of Energy Affairs, the same to be answerable for suspensions or disallowances, errors or

7

discrepancies which may be noted in the course of audit and surcharges for late remittances without prejudice to similar future retentions to answer for any deficiency in such surcharges, and provided further that no offsetting of remittances and reimbursements for the current and ensuing years shall be allowed.

Pursuant to this decision, the COA, on 18 August 1989, sent the following letter to Executive Director Wenceslao R. De la Paz of the Office of Energy Affairs: 12

Dear Atty. dela Paz:Pursuant to the Commission on Audit Decision No. 921 dated June 7, 1989, and based on our initial verification of documents submitted to us by your Office in support of Caltex (Philippines), Inc. offsets (sic) for the year 1986 to May 31, 1989, as well as its outstanding claims against the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) as of May 31, 1989, we are pleased to inform your Office that Caltex (Philippines), Inc. shall be required to remit to OPSF an amount of P1,505,668,906, representing remittances to the OPSF which were offset against its claims reimbursements (net of unsubmitted claims). In addition, the Commission hereby authorize (sic) the Office of Energy Affairs (OEA) to cause payment of P1,959,182,612 to Caltex, representing claims initially allowed in audit, the details of which are presented hereunder: . . .As presented in the foregoing computation the disallowances totalled P387,683,535, which included P130,420,235 representing those claims disallowed by OEA, details of which is (sic) shown in Schedule 1 as summarized as follows:Disallowance of COAParticulars AmountRecovery of financing charges P162,728,475 /aProduct sales 48,402,398 /bInventory lossesBorrow loan arrangement 14,034,786 /cSales to Atlas/Marcopper 32,097,083 /dSales to NPC 558——————P257,263,300

Disallowances of OEA 130,420,235————————— ——————Total P387,683,535

The reasons for the disallowances are discussed hereunder:a. Recovery of Financing ChargesReview of the provisions of P.D. 1596 as amended by E.O. 137 seems to indicate that recovery of financing charges by oil companies is not among the items for which the OPSF may be utilized. Therefore, it is our view that recovery of financing charges has no legal basis. The mechanism for such claims is provided in DOF Circular 1-87.b. Product Sales –– Sales to International Vessels/AirlinesBOE Resolution No. 87-01 dated February 7, 1987 as implemented by OEA Order No. 87-03-095 indicating that (sic) February 7, 1987 as the effectivity date that (sic) oil companies should pay OPSF impost on export sales of petroleum products. Effective February 7, 1987 sales to international vessels/airlines should not be included as part of its domestic sales. Changing the effectivity date of the resolution from February 7, 1987 to October 20, 1987 as covered by subsequent ERB Resolution No. 88-12 dated November 18, 1988 has allowed Caltex to include in their domestic sales volumes to international vessels/airlines and claim the corresponding reimbursements from OPSF during the period. It is our opinion that the effectivity of the said resolution should be February 7, 1987.c. Inventory losses –– Settlement of Ad ValoremWe reviewed the system of handling Borrow and Loan (BLA) transactions including the related BLA agreement, as they affect the claims for reimbursements of ad valorem taxes. We observed that oil companies immediately settle ad valorem taxes for BLA transaction (sic). Loan balances therefore are not tax paid inventories of Caltex subject to reimbursements but those of the borrower. Hence, we recommend reduction of the claim for

8

July, August, and November, 1987 amounting to P14,034,786.d. Sales to Atlas/MarcopperLOI No. 1416 dated July 17, 1984 provides that "I hereby order and direct the suspension of payment of all taxes, duties, fees, imposts and other charges whether direct or indirect due and payable by the copper mining companies in distress to the national and local governments." It is our opinion that LOI 1416 which implements the exemption from payment of OPSF imposts as effected by OEA has no legal basis.Furthermore, we wish to emphasize that payment to Caltex (Phil.) Inc., of the amount as herein authorized shall be subject to availability of funds of OPSF as of May 31, 1989 and applicable auditing rules and regulations. With regard to the disallowances, it is further informed that the aggrieved party has 30 days within which to appeal the decision of the Commission in accordance with law.

On 8 September 1989, petitioner filed an Omnibus Request for the Reconsideration of the decision based on the following grounds: 13

A) COA-DISALLOWED CLAIMS ARE AUTHORIZED UNDER EXISTING RULES, ORDERS, RESOLUTIONS, CIRCULARS ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND THE ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 137.

xxx xxx xxxB) ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS IN THE COURSE OF EXERCISE OF EXECUTIVE POWER BY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD ARE LEGAL AND SHOULD BE RESPECTED AND APPLIED UNLESS DECLARED NULL AND VOID BY COURTS OR REPEALED BY LEGISLATION.

xxx xxx xxxC) LEGAL BASIS FOR RETENTION OF OFFSET ARRANGEMENT, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, REMAINS VALID.

xxx xxx xxxOn 6 November 1989, petitioner filed with the COA a Supplemental Omnibus Request for Reconsideration. 14

On 16 February 1990, the COA, with Chairman Domingo taking no part and with Commissioner Fernandez dissenting in part, handed down Decision No. 1171 affirming the disallowance for recovery of financing charges, inventory losses, and sales to MARCOPPER and ATLAS, while allowing the recovery of product sales or those arising from export sales. 15 Decision No. 1171 reads as follows:

Anent the recovery of financing charges you contend that Caltex Phil. Inc. has the .authority to recover financing charges from the OPSF on the basis of Department of Finance (DOF) Circular 1-87, dated February 18, 1987, which allowed oil companies to "recover cost of financing working capital associated with crude oil shipments," and provided a schedule of reimbursement in terms of peso per barrel. It appears that on November 6, 1989, the DOF issued a memorandum to the President of the Philippines explaining the nature of these financing charges and justifying their reimbursement as follows:As part of your program to promote economic recovery, . . . oil companies (were authorized) to refinance their imports of crude oil and petroleum products from the normal trade credit of 30 days up to 360 days from date of loading . . . Conformably . . ., the oil companies deferred their foreign exchange remittances for purchases by refinancing their import bills from the normal 30-day payment term up to the desired 360 days. This refinancing of importations carried additional costs (financing charges) which then became, due to government mandate, an inherent part of the cost of the purchases of our country's oil requirement.We beg to disagree with such contention. The justification that financing charges increased oil costs and the schedule of reimbursement rate in peso per barrel (Exhibit 1) used to support alleged increase (sic) were not validated in our independent inquiry. As manifested in Exhibit 2, using the same

9

formula which the DOF used in arriving at the reimbursement rate but using comparable percentages instead of pesos, the ineluctable conclusion is that the oil companies are actually gaining rather than losing from the extension of credit because such extension enables them to invest the collections in marketable securities which have much higher rates than those they incur due to the extension. The Data we used were obtained from CPI (CALTEX) Management and can easily be verified from our records.With respect to product sales or those arising from sales to international vessels or airlines, . . ., it is believed that export sales (product sales) are entitled to claim refund from the OPSF.As regard your claim for underrecovery arising from inventory losses, . . . It is the considered view of this Commission that the OPSF is not liable to refund such surtax on inventory losses because these are paid to BIR and not OPSF, in view of which CPI (CALTEX) should seek refund from BIR. . . .Finally, as regards the sales to Atlas and Marcopper, it is represented that you are entitled to claim recovery from the OPSF pursuant to LOI 1416 issued on July 17, 1984, since these copper mining companies did not pay CPI (CALTEX) and OPSF imposts which were added to the selling price.Upon a circumspect evaluation, this Commission believes and so holds that the CPI (CALTEX) has no authority to claim reimbursement for this uncollected OPSF impost because LOI 1416 dated July 17, 1984, which exempts distressed mining companies from "all taxes, duties, import fees and other charges" was issued when OPSF was not yet in existence and could not have contemplated OPSF imposts at the time of its formulation. Moreover, it is evident that OPSF was not created to aid distressed mining companies but rather to help the domestic oil industry by stabilizing oil prices.

Unsatisfied with the decision, petitioner filed on 28 March 1990 the present petition wherein it imputes to the COA the commission of the following errors: 16

IRESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN DISALLOWING RECOVERY OF FINANCING CHARGES FROM THE OPSF.

IIRESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN DISALLOWING CPI's 17 CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF UNDERRECOVERY ARISING FROM SALES TO NPC.

IIIRESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN DENYING CPI's CLAIMS FOR REIMBURSEMENT ON SALES TO ATLAS AND MARCOPPER.

IVRESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN PREVENTING CPI FROM EXERCISING ITS LEGAL RIGHT TO OFFSET ITS REMITTANCES AGAINST ITS REIMBURSEMENT VIS-A-VIS THE OPSF.

VRESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN DISALLOWING CPI's CLAIMS WHICH ARE STILL PENDING RESOLUTION BY (SIC) THE OEA AND THE DOF.

In the Resolution of 5 April 1990, this Court required the respondents to comment on the petition within ten (10) days from notice. 18

On 6 September 1990, respondents COA and Commissioners Fernandez and Cruz, assisted by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed their Comment. 19

This Court resolved to give due course to this petition on 30 May 1991 and required the parties to file their respective Memoranda within twenty (20) days from notice. 20

In a Manifestation dated 18 July 1991, the Office of the Solicitor General prays that the Comment filed on 6 September 1990 be considered as the Memorandum for respondents. 21

Upon the other hand, petitioner filed its Memorandum on 14 August 1991.I. Petitioner dwells lengthily on its first assigned error contending, in support thereof, that:(1) In view of the expanded role of the OPSF pursuant to Executive Order No. 137, which added a second purpose, to wit:

2) To reimburse the oil companies for possible cost underrecovery incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic

10

prices of petroleum products. The magnitude of the underrecovery, if any, shall be determined by the Ministry of Finance. "Cost underrecovery" shall include the following:i. Reduction in oil company take as directed by the Board of Energy without the corresponding reduction in the landed cost of oil inventories in the possession of the oil companies at the time of the price change;ii. Reduction in internal ad valorem taxes as a result of foregoing government mandated price reductions;iii. Other factors as may be determined by the Ministry of Finance to result in cost underrecovery.

the "other factors" mentioned therein that may be determined by the Ministry (now Department) of Finance may include financing charges for "in essence, financing charges constitute unrecovered cost of acquisition of crude oil incurred by the oil companies," as explained in the 6 November 1989 Memorandum to the President of the Department of Finance; they "directly translate to cost underrecovery in cases where the money market placement rates decline and at the same time the tax on interest income increases. The relationship is such that the presence of underrecovery or overrecovery is directly dependent on the amount and extent of financing charges."(2) The claim for recovery of financing charges has clear legal and factual basis; it was filed on the basis of Department of Finance Circular No. 1-87, dated 18 February 1987, which provides:

To allow oil companies to recover the costs of financing working capital associated with crude oil shipments, the following guidelines on the utilization of the Oil Price Stabilization Fund pertaining to the payment of the foregoing (sic) exchange risk premium and recovery of financing charges will be implemented:1. The OPSF foreign exchange premium shall be reduced to a flat rate of one (1) percent for the first (6) months and 1/32 of one percent per month thereafter up to a maximum period of one year, to be applied on crude oil' shipments from January 1, 1987. Shipments with outstanding financing as of January 1, 1987 shall be charged on the basis of the fee applicable to the remaining period of financing.

2. In addition, for shipments loaded after January 1987, oil companies shall be allowed to recover financing charges directly from the OPSF per barrel of crude oil based on the following schedule:

Financing Period Reimbursement RatePesos per BarrelLess than 180 days None180 days to 239 days 1.90241 (sic) days to 299 4.02300 days to 369 (sic) days 6.16360 days or more 8.28

The above rates shall be subject to review every sixtydays. 22

Pursuant to this circular, the Department of Finance, in its letter of 18 February 1987, advised the Office of Energy Affairs as follows:

HON. VICENTE T. PATERNODeputy Executive SecretaryFor Energy AffairsOffice of the PresidentMakati, Metro ManilaDear Sir:This refers to the letters of the Oil Industry dated December 4, 1986 and February 5, 1987 and subsequent discussions held by the Price Review committee on February 6, 1987.On the basis of the representations made, the Department of Finance recognizes the necessity to reduce the foreign exchange risk premium accruing to the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF). Such a reduction would allow the industry to recover partly associated financing charges on crude oil imports. Accordingly, the OPSF foreign exchange risk fee shall be reduced to a flat charge of 1% for the first six (6) months plus 1/32% of 1% per month thereafter up to a maximum period of one year, effective January 1, 1987. In addition, since the prevailing company take would still leave unrecovered financing charges, reimbursement may be secured from the OPSF in accordance with the provisions of the attached Department of Finance circular. 23

Acting on this letter, the OEA issued on 4 May 1987 Order No. 87-05-096 which contains the guidelines for

11

the computation of the foreign exchange risk fee and the recovery of financing charges from the OPSF, to wit:

B. FINANCE CHARGES1. Oil companies shall be allowed to recover financing charges directly from the OPSF for both crude and product shipments loaded after January 1, 1987 based on the following rates: Financing Period Reimbursement Rate(PBbl.)Less than 180 days None 180 days to 239 days 1.90240 days to 229 (sic) days 4.02300 days to 359 days 6.16360 days to more 8.28

2. The above rates shall be subject to review every sixty days. 24

Then on 22 November 1988, the Department of Finance issued Circular No. 4-88 imposing further guidelines on the recoverability of financing charges, to wit:

Following are the supplemental rules to Department of Finance Circular No. 1-87 dated February 18, 1987 which allowed the recovery of financing charges directly from the Oil Price Stabilization Fund. (OPSF):1. The Claim for reimbursement shall be

on a per shipment basis.2. The claim shall be filed with the Office

of Energy Affairs together with the claim on peso cost differential for a particular shipment and duly certified supporting documents provided for under Ministry of Finance No. 11-85.

3. The reimbursement shall be on the form of reimbursement certificate (Annex A) to be issued by the Office of Energy Affairs. The said certificate may be used to offset against amounts payable to the OPSF. The oil companies may also redeem said certificates in cash if not utilized, subject to availability of funds. 25

The OEA disseminated this Circular to all oil companies in its Memorandum Circular No. 88-12-017. 26

The COA can neither ignore these issuances nor formulate its own interpretation of the laws in the light of the determination of executive agencies. The determination by the Department of Finance and the OEA that financing charges are recoverable from the OPSF is entitled to great weight and consideration. 27 The function of the COA, particularly in the matter of allowing or disallowing certain expenditures, is limited to the promulgation of accounting and auditing rules for, among others, the disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive,

extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and properties. 28

(3) Denial of petitioner's claim for reimbursement would be inequitable. Additionally, COA's claim that petitioner is gaining, instead of losing, from the extension of credit, is belatedly raised and not supported by expert analysis.In impeaching the validity of petitioner's assertions, the respondents argue that:

1. The Constitution gives the COA discretionary power to disapprove irregular or unnecessary government expenditures and as the monetary claims of petitioner are not allowed by law, the COA acted within its jurisdiction in denying them;

2. P.D. No. 1956 and E.O. No. 137 do not allow reimbursement of financing charges from the OPSF;

3. Under the principle of ejusdem generis, the "other factors" mentioned in the second purpose of the OPSF pursuant to E.O. No. 137 can only include "factors which are of the same nature or analogous to those enumerated;"

4. In allowing reimbursement of financing charges from OPSF, Circular No. 1-87 of the Department of Finance violates P.D. No. 1956 and E.O. No. 137; and

5. Department of Finance rules and regulations implementing P.D. No. 1956 do not likewise allow reimbursement of financing charges. 29

We find no merit in the first assigned error.As to the power of the COA, which must first be resolved in view of its primacy, We find the theory of petitioner –– that such does not extend to the disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or use of government funds and properties, but only to the promulgation of accounting and auditing rules for, among others, such disallowance –– to be untenable in the light of the provisions of the 1987 Constitution and related laws.Section 2, Subdivision D, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution expressly provides:

Sec. 2(l). The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post-audit basis: (a) constitutional bodies, commissions and

12

offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution; (b) autonomous state colleges and universities; (c) other government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and (d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. However, where the internal control system of the audited agencies is inadequate, the Commission may adopt such measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, as are necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the general accounts, of the Government and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto.

(2) The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article, to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or, unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and properties.

These present powers, consistent with the declared independence of the Commission, 30 are broader and more extensive than that conferred by the 1973 Constitution. Under the latter, the Commission was empowered to:

Examine, audit, and settle, in accordance with law and regulations, all accounts pertaining to the revenues, and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities including government-owned or controlled corporations, keep the general accounts of the Government and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers pertaining thereto; and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations including those for the prevention of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, or extravagant expenditures or uses of funds and property. 31

Upon the other hand, under the 1935 Constitution, the power and authority of the COA's precursor, the General Auditing Office, were, unfortunately, limited; its very role

was markedly passive. Section 2 of Article XI thereofprovided:

Sec. 2. The Auditor General shall examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenues and receipts from whatever source, including trust funds derived from bond issues; and audit, in accordance with law and administrative regulations, all expenditures of funds or property pertaining to or held in trust by the Government or the provinces or municipalities thereof. He shall keep the general accounts of the Government and the preserve the vouchers pertaining thereto. It shall be the duty of the Auditor General to bring to the attention of the proper administrative officer expenditures of funds or property which, in his opinion, are irregular, unnecessary, excessive, or extravagant. He shall also perform such other functions as may be prescribed by law.

As clearly shown above, in respect to irregular, unnecessary, excessive or extravagant expenditures or uses of funds, the 1935 Constitution did not grant the Auditor General the power to issue rules and regulations to prevent the same. His was merely to bring that matter to the attention of the proper administrative officer.The ruling on this particular point, quoted by petitioner from the cases of Guevarra vs. Gimenez 32 and Ramos vs.Aquino, 33 are no longer controlling as the two (2) were decided in the light of the 1935 Constitution.There can be no doubt, however, that the audit power of the Auditor General under the 1935 Constitution and the Commission on Audit under the 1973 Constitution authorized them to disallow illegal expenditures of funds or uses of funds and property. Our present Constitution retains that same power and authority, further strengthened by the definition of the COA's general jurisdiction in Section 26 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines 34and Administrative Code of 1987. 35 Pursuant to its power to promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations for the prevention of irregular, unnecessary, excessive or extravagant expenditures or uses of funds,36 the COA promulgated on 29 March 1977 COA Circular No. 77-55. Since the COA is responsible for the enforcement of the rules and regulations, it goes without saying that failure to comply with them is a ground for disapproving the payment of the proposed expenditure. As observed by one of the Commissioners of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas: 37

It should be noted, however, that whereas under Article XI, Section 2, of the 1935 Constitution the Auditor General could not correct "irregular, unnecessary, excessive or

13

extravagant" expenditures of public funds but could only "bring [the matter] to the attention of the proper administrative officer," under the 1987 Constitution, as also under the 1973 Constitution, the Commission on Audit can "promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties." Hence, since the Commission on Audit must ultimately be responsible for the enforcement of these rules and regulations, the failure to comply with these regulations can be a ground for disapproving the payment of a proposed expenditure.

Indeed, when the framers of the last two (2) Constitutions conferred upon the COA a more active role and invested it with broader and more extensive powers, they did not intend merely to make the COA a toothless tiger, but rather envisioned a dynamic, effective, efficient and independent watchdog of the Government.The issue of the financing charges boils down to the validity of Department of Finance Circular No. 1-87, Department of Finance Circular No. 4-88 and the implementing circulars of the OEA, issued pursuant to Section 8, P.D. No. 1956, as amended by E.O. No. 137, authorizing it to determine "other factors" which may result in cost underrecovery and a consequent reimbursement from the OPSF.The Solicitor General maintains that, following the doctrine of ejusdem generis, financing charges are not included in "cost underrecovery" and, therefore, cannot be considered as one of the "other factors." Section 8 of P.D. No. 1956, as amended by E.O. No. 137, does not explicitly define what "cost underrecovery" is. It merely states what it includes. Thus:

. . . "Cost underrecovery" shall include the following:

i. Reduction in oil company takes as directed by the Board of Energy without the corresponding reduction in the landed cost of oil inventories in the possession of the oil companies at the time of the price change;

ii. Reduction in internal ad valorem taxes as a result of foregoing government mandated price reductions;

iii. Other factors as may be determined by the Ministry of Finance to result in cost under recovery.

These "other factors" can include only those which are of the same class or nature as the two specifically enumerated in subparagraphs (i) and (ii). A common characteristic of both is that they are in the nature of

government mandated price reductions. Hence, any other factor which seeks to be a part of the enumeration, or which could qualify as a cost underrecovery, must be of the same class or nature as those specifically enumerated.Petitioner, however, suggests that E.O. No. 137 intended to grant the Department of Finance broad and unrestricted authority to determine or define "other factors."Both views are unacceptable to this Court.The rule of ejusdem generis states that "[w]here general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are held to be as applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned. 38 A reading of subparagraphs (i) and (ii) easily discloses that they do not have a common characteristic. The first relates to price reduction as directed by the Board of Energy while the second refers to reduction in internal ad valorem taxes. Therefore, subparagraph (iii) cannot be limited by the enumeration in these subparagraphs. What should be considered for purposes of determining the "other factors" in subparagraph (iii) is the first sentence of paragraph (2) of the Section which explicitly allows cost underrecovery only if such were incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products.Although petitioner's financing losses, if indeed incurred, may constitute cost underrecovery in the sense that such were incurred as a result of the inability to fully offset financing expenses from yields in money market placements, they do not, however, fall under the foregoing provision of P.D. No. 1956, as amended, because the same did not result from the reduction of the domestic price of petroleum products. Until paragraph (2), Section 8 of the decree, as amended, is further amended by Congress, this Court can do nothing. The duty of this Court is not to legislate, but to apply or interpret the law. Be that as it may, this Court wishes to emphasize that as the facts in this case have shown, it was at the behest of the Government that petitioner refinanced its oil import payments from the normal 30-day trade credit to a maximum of 360 days. Petitioner could be correct in its assertion that owing to the extended period for payment, the financial institution which refinanced said payments charged a higher interest, thereby resulting in higher financing expenses for the petitioner. It would appear then that equity considerations dictate that petitioner should somehow be allowed to recover its financing losses, if any, which may have been sustained because it accommodated the request of the Government. Although under Section 29 of the National Internal Revenue Code such losses may

14

be deducted from gross income, the effect of that loss would be merely to reduce its taxable income, but not to actually wipe out such losses. The Government then may consider some positive measures to help petitioner and others similarly situated to obtain substantial relief. An amendment, as aforestated, may then be in order.Upon the other hand, to accept petitioner's theory of "unrestricted authority" on the part of the Department of Finance to determine or define "other factors" is to uphold an undue delegation of legislative power, it clearly appearing that the subject provision does not provide any standard for the exercise of the authority. It is a fundamental rule that delegation of legislative power may be sustained only upon the ground that some standard for its exercise is provided and that the legislature, in making the delegation, has prescribed the manner of the exercise of the delegated authority. 39

Finally, whether petitioner gained or lost by reason of the extensive credit is rendered irrelevant by reason of the foregoing disquisitions. It may nevertheless be stated that petitioner failed to disprove COA's claim that it had in fact gained in the process. Otherwise stated, petitioner failed to sufficiently show that it incurred a loss. Such being the case, how can petitioner claim for reimbursement? It cannot have its cake and eat it too.II. Anent the claims arising from sales to the National Power Corporation, We find for the petitioner. The respondents themselves admit in their Comment that underrecovery arising from sales to NPC are reimbursable because NPC was granted full exemption from the payment of taxes; to prove this, respondents trace the laws providing for such exemption. 40 The last law cited is the Fiscal Incentives Regulatory Board's Resolution No. 17-87 of 24 June 1987 which provides, in part, "that the tax and duty exemption privileges of the National Power Corporation, including those pertaining to its domestic purchases of petroleum and petroleum products . . . are restored effective March 10, 1987." In a Memorandum issued on 5 October 1987 by the Office of the President, NPC's tax exemption was confirmed and approved.Furthermore, as pointed out by respondents, the intention to exempt sales of petroleum products to the NPC is evident in the recently passed Republic Act No. 6952 establishing the Petroleum Price Standby Fund to support the OPSF. 41 The pertinent part of Section 2, Republic Act No. 6952 provides:

Sec. 2. Application of the Fund shall be subject to the following conditions:

(1) That the Fund shall be used to reimburse the oil companies for (a) cost increases of imported crude oil and finished petroleum products resulting from foreign exchange rate adjustments

and/or increases in world market prices of crude oil; (b) cost underrecovery incurred as a result of fuel oil sales to the National Power Corporation (NPC); and (c) other cost underrecoveries incurred as may be finally decided by the SupremeCourt; . . .

Hence, petitioner can recover its claim arising from sales of petroleum products to the National Power Corporation.III. With respect to its claim for reimbursement on sales to ATLAS and MARCOPPER, petitioner relies on Letter of Instruction (LOI) 1416, dated 17 July 1984, which ordered the suspension of payments of all taxes, duties, fees and other charges, whether direct or indirect, due and payable by the copper mining companies in distress to the national government. Pursuant to this LOI, then Minister of Energy, Hon. Geronimo Velasco, issued Memorandum Circular No. 84-11-22 advising the oil companies that Atlas Consolidated Mining Corporation and Marcopper Mining Corporation are among those declared to be in distress.In denying the claims arising from sales to ATLAS and MARCOPPER, the COA, in its 18 August 1989 letter to Executive Director Wenceslao R. de la Paz, states that "it is our opinion that LOI 1416 which implements the exemption from payment of OPSF imposts as effected by OEA has no legal basis;" 42 in its Decision No. 1171, it ruled that "the CPI (CALTEX) (Caltex) has no authority to claim reimbursement for this uncollected impost because LOI 1416 dated July 17, 1984, . . . was issued when OPSF was not yet in existence and could not have contemplated OPSF imposts at the time of its formulation." 43 It is further stated that: "Moreover, it is evident that OPSF was not created to aid distressed mining companies but rather to help the domestic oil industry by stabilizing oil prices."In sustaining COA's stand, respondents vigorously maintain that LOI 1416 could not have intended to exempt said distressed mining companies from the payment of OPSF dues for the following reasons:

a. LOI 1416 granting the alleged exemption was issued on July 17, 1984. P.D. 1956 creating the OPSF was promulgated on October 10, 1984, while E.O. 137, amending P.D. 1956, was issued on February 25, 1987.

b. LOI 1416 was issued in 1984 to assist distressed copper mining companies in line with the government's effort to prevent the collapse of the copper industry. P.D No. 1956, as amended, was issued for the purpose of minimizing frequent price changes brought about by exchange rate adjustments and/or

15

changes in world market prices of crude oil and imported petroleum product's; and

c. LOI 1416 caused the "suspension of all taxes, duties, fees, imposts and other charges, whether direct or indirect, due and payable by the copper mining companies in distress to the Notional and Local Governments . . ." On the other hand, OPSF dues are not payable by (sic) distressed copper companies but by oil companies. It is to be noted that the copper mining companies do not pay OPSF dues. Rather, such imposts are built in or already incorporated in the prices of oil products. 44

Lastly, respondents allege that while LOI 1416 suspends the payment of taxes by distressed mining companies, it does not accord petitioner the same privilege with respect to its obligation to pay OPSF dues.We concur with the disquisitions of the respondents. Aside from such reasons, however, it is apparent that LOI 1416 was never published in the Official Gazette 45 as required by Article 2 of the Civil Code, which reads:

Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. . . .

In applying said provision, this Court ruled in the case of Tañada vs. Tuvera: 46

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, and unless so published they shall have no binding force and effect.

Resolving the motion for reconsideration of said decision, this Court, in its Resolution promulgated on 29 December 1986, 47 ruled:

We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.

Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution. Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or

implement existing laws pursuant also to a valid delegation.

xxx xxx xxxWHEREFORE, it is hereby declared that

all laws as above defined shall immediately upon their approval, or as soon thereafter as possible, be published in full in the Official Gazette, to become effective only after fifteen days from their publication, or on another date specified by the legislature, in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Code.

LOI 1416 has, therefore, no binding force or effect as it was never published in the Official Gazette after its issuance or at any time after the decision in the abovementioned cases.Article 2 of the Civil Code was, however, later amended by Executive Order No. 200, issued on 18 June 1987. As amended, the said provision now reads:

Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided.

We are not aware of the publication of LOI 1416 in any newspaper of general circulation pursuant to Executive Order No. 200.Furthermore, even granting arguendo that LOI 1416 has force and effect, petitioner's claim must still fail. Tax exemptions as a general rule are construed strictly against the grantee and liberally in favor of the taxing authority.48 The burden of proof rests upon the party claiming exemption to prove that it is in fact covered by the exemption so claimed. The party claiming exemption must therefore be expressly mentioned in the exempting law or at least be within its purview by clear legislative intent.In the case at bar, petitioner failed to prove that it is entitled, as a consequence of its sales to ATLAS and MARCOPPER, to claim reimbursement from the OPSF under LOI 1416. Though LOI 1416 may suspend the payment of taxes by copper mining companies, it does not give petitioner the same privilege with respect to the payment of OPSF dues.IV. As to COA's disallowance of the amount of P130,420,235.00, petitioner maintains that the Department of Finance has still to issue a final and definitive ruling thereon; accordingly, it was premature for COA to disallow it. By doing so, the latter acted beyond its jurisdiction. 49 Respondents, on the other hand, contend that said amount was already disallowed by the OEA for failure to substantiate it. 50 In fact, when OEA submitted the claims of petitioner for pre-audit, the abovementioned amount was already excluded.

16

An examination of the records of this case shows that petitioner failed to prove or substantiate its contention that the amount of P130,420,235.00 is still pending before the OEA and the DOF. Additionally, We find no reason to doubt the submission of respondents that said amount has already been passed upon by the OEA. Hence, the ruling of respondent COA disapproving said claim must be upheld.V. The last issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the amounts due to the OPSF from petitioner may be offset against petitioner's outstanding claims from said fund. Petitioner contends that it should be allowed to offset its claims from the OPSF against its contributions to the fund as this has been allowed in the past, particularly in the years 1987 and 1988. 51

Furthermore, petitioner cites, as bases for offsetting, the provisions of the New Civil Code on compensation and Section 21, Book V, Title I-B of the Revised Administrative Code which provides for "Retention of Money for Satisfaction of Indebtedness to Government." 52 Petitioner also mentions communications from the Board of Energy and the Department of Finance that supposedly authorize compensation.Respondents, on the other hand, citing Francia vs. IAC and Fernandez, 53 contend that there can be no offsetting of taxes against the claims that a taxpayer may have against the government, as taxes do not arise from contracts or depend upon the will of the taxpayer, but are imposed by law. Respondents also allege that petitioner's reliance on Section 21, Book V, Title I-B of the Revised Administrative Code, is misplaced because "while this provision empowers the COA to withhold payment of a government indebtedness to a person who is also indebted to the government and apply the government indebtedness to the satisfaction of the obligation of the person to the government, like authority or right to make compensation is not given to the private person." 54 The reason for this, as stated in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc., 55 is that money due the government, either in the form of taxes or other dues, is its lifeblood and should be collected without hindrance. Thus, instead of giving petitioner a reason for compensation or set-off, the Revised Administrative Code makes it the respondents' duty to collect petitioner's indebtedness to the OPSF.Refuting respondents' contention, petitioner claims that the amounts due from it do not arise as a result of taxation because "P.D. 1956, amended, did not create a source of taxation; it instead established a special fund . . .," 56and that the OPSF contributions do not go to the general fund of the state and are not used for public purpose,i.e., not for the support of the government, the administration of law, or the payment of public expenses.

This alleged lack of a public purpose behind OPSF exactions distinguishes such from a tax. Hence, the ruling in theFrancia case is inapplicable.Lastly, petitioner cites R.A. No. 6952 creating the Petroleum Price Standby Fund to support the OPSF; the said law provides in part that:

Sec. 2. Application of the fund shall be subject to the following conditions:

xxx xxx xxx(3) That no amount of the

Petroleum Price Standby Fund shall be used to pay any oil company which has an outstanding obligation to the Government without said obligation being offset first, subject to the requirements of compensation or offset under the Civil Code.

We find no merit in petitioner's contention that the OPSF contributions are not for a public purpose because they go to a special fund of the government. Taxation is no longer envisioned as a measure merely to raise revenue to support the existence of the government; taxes may be levied with a regulatory purpose to provide means for the rehabilitation and stabilization of a threatened industry which is affected with public interest as to be within the police power of the state. 57 There can be no doubt that the oil industry is greatly imbued with public interest as it vitally affects the general welfare. Any unregulated increase in oil prices could hurt the lives of a majority of the people and cause economic crisis of untold proportions. It would have a chain reaction in terms of, among others, demands for wage increases and upward spiralling of the cost of basic commodities. The stabilization then of oil prices is of prime concern which the state, via its police power, may properly address.Also, P.D. No. 1956, as amended by E.O. No. 137, explicitly provides that the source of OPSF is taxation. No amount of semantical juggleries could dim this fact.It is settled that a taxpayer may not offset taxes due from the claims that he may have against the government. 58Taxes cannot be the subject of compensation because the government and taxpayer are not mutually creditors and debtors of each other and a claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract or judgment as is allowed to be set-off. 59

We may even further state that technically, in respect to the taxes for the OPSF, the oil companies merely act as agents for the Government in the latter's collection since the taxes are, in reality, passed unto the end-users –– the consuming public. In that capacity, the petitioner, as one of such companies, has the primary obligation to account for and remit the taxes collected to the administrator of the OPSF. This duty stems from the

17

fiduciary relationship between the two; petitioner certainly cannot be considered merely as a debtor. In respect, therefore, to its collection for the OPSF vis-a-vis its claims for reimbursement, no compensation is likewise legally feasible. Firstly, the Government and the petitioner cannot be said to be mutually debtors and creditors of each other. Secondly, there is no proof that petitioner's claim is already due and liquidated. Under Article 1279 of the Civil Code, in order that compensation may be proper, it is necessary that:

(1) each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other;(2) both debts consist in a sum of :money, or if the things due are consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated;(3) the two (2) debts be due;(4) they be liquidated and demandable;(5) over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and communicated in due time to the debtor.

That compensation had been the practice in the past can set no valid precedent. Such a practice has no legal basis. Lastly, R.A. No. 6952 does not authorize oil companies to offset their claims against their OPSF contributions. Instead, it prohibits the government from paying any amount from the Petroleum Price Standby Fund to oil companies which have outstanding obligations with the government, without said obligation being offset first subject to the rules on compensation in the Civil Code.WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered AFFIRMING the challenged decision of the Commission on Audit, except that portion thereof disallowing petitioner's claim for reimbursement of underrecovery arising from sales to the National Power Corporation, which is hereby allowed.With costs against petitioner.SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 159647 April 15, 2005COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioners, vs.CENTRAL LUZON DRUG CORPORATION, Respondent.

D E C I S I O NPANGANIBAN, J.:The 20 percent discount required by the law to be given to senior citizens is a tax credit, not merely a tax deduction from the gross income or gross sale of the

establishment concerned. A tax credit is used by a private establishment only after the tax has been computed; a tax deduction, before the tax is computed. RA 7432 unconditionally grants a tax credit to all covered entities. Thus, the provisions of the revenue regulation that withdraw or modify such grant are void. Basic is the rule that administrative regulations cannot amend or revoke the law.

The CaseBefore us is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the August 29, 2002 Decision2 and the August 11, 2003 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 67439. The assailed Decision reads as follows:"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolution appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto. No costs."4

The assailed Resolution denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.The FactsThe CA narrated the antecedent facts as follows:"Respondent is a domestic corporation primarily engaged in retailing of medicines and other pharmaceutical products. In 1996, it operated six (6) drugstores under the business name and style ‘Mercury Drug.’"From January to December 1996, respondent granted twenty (20%) percent sales discount to qualified senior citizens on their purchases of medicines pursuant to Republic Act No. [R.A.] 7432 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. For the said period, the amount allegedly representing the 20% sales discount granted by respondent to qualified senior citizens totaled P904,769.00."On April 15, 1997, respondent filed its Annual Income Tax Return for taxable year 1996 declaring therein that it incurred net losses from its operations."On January 16, 1998, respondent filed with petitioner a claim for tax refund/credit in the amount of P904,769.00 allegedly arising from the 20% sales discount granted by respondent to qualified senior citizens in compliance with [R.A.] 7432. Unable to obtain affirmative response from petitioner, respondent elevated its claim to the Court of Tax Appeals [(CTA or Tax Court)] via a Petition for Review."On February 12, 2001, the Tax Court rendered a Decision5 dismissing respondent’s Petition for lack of merit. In said decision, the [CTA] justified its ruling with the following ratiocination:‘x x x, if no tax has been paid to the government, erroneously or illegally, or if no amount is due and collectible from the taxpayer, tax refund or tax credit is unavailing. Moreover, whether the recovery of the tax is made by means of a claim for refund or tax credit, before recovery is allowed[,] it must be first established that

18

there was an actual collection and receipt by the government of the tax sought to be recovered. x x x.

‘x x x x x x x x x‘Prescinding from the above, it could logically be deduced that tax credit is premised on the existence of tax liability on the part of taxpayer. In other words, if there is no tax liability, tax credit is not available.’"Respondent lodged a Motion for Reconsideration. The [CTA], in its assailed resolution,6 granted respondent’s motion for reconsideration and ordered herein petitioner to issue a Tax Credit Certificate in favor of respondent citing the decision of the then Special Fourth Division of [the CA] in CA G.R. SP No. 60057 entitled ‘Central [Luzon] Drug Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue’ promulgated on May 31, 2001, to wit:‘However, Sec. 229 clearly does not apply in the instant case because the tax sought to be refunded or credited by petitioner was not erroneously paid or illegally collected. We take exception to the CTA’s sweeping but unfounded statement that ‘both tax refund and tax credit are modes of recovering taxes which are either erroneously or illegally paid to the government.’ Tax refunds or credits do not exclusively pertain to illegally collected or erroneously paid taxes as they may be other circumstances where a refund is warranted. The tax refund provided under Section 229 deals exclusively with illegally collected or erroneously paid taxes but there are other possible situations, such as the refund of excess estimated corporate quarterly income tax paid, or that of excess input tax paid by a VAT-registered person, or that of excise tax paid on goods locally produced or manufactured but actually exported. The standards and mechanics for the grant of a refund or credit under these situations are different from that under Sec. 229. Sec. 4[.a)] of R.A. 7432, is yet another instance of a tax credit and it does not in any way refer to illegally collected or erroneously paid taxes, x x x.’"7

Ruling of the Court of AppealsThe CA affirmed in toto the Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) ordering petitioner to issue a tax credit certificate in favor of respondent in the reduced amount of P903,038.39. It reasoned that Republic Act No. (RA) 7432 required neither a tax liability nor a payment of taxes by private establishments prior to the availment of a tax credit. Moreover, such credit is not tantamount to an unintended benefit from the law, but rather a just compensation for the taking of private property for public use.Hence this Petition.8

The IssuesPetitioner raises the following issues for our

consideration:"Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondent may claim the 20% sales discount as a tax

credit instead of as a deduction from gross income or gross sales."Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondent is entitled to a refund."9

These two issues may be summed up in only one: whether respondent, despite incurring a net loss, may still claim the 20 percent sales discount as a tax credit.

The Court’s RulingThe Petition is not meritorious.

Sole Issue:Claim of 20 Percent Sales Discount

as   Tax Credit   Despite   Net Loss Section 4a) of RA 743210 grants to senior citizens the privilege of obtaining a 20 percent discount on their purchase of medicine from any private establishment in the country.11 The latter may then claim the cost of the discount as a tax credit.12 But can such credit be claimed, even though an establishment operates at a loss?We answer in the affirmative.Tax Credit   versus Tax DeductionAlthough the term is not specifically defined in our Tax Code,13 tax credit generally refers to an amount that is "subtracted directly from one’s total tax liability."14 It is an "allowance against the tax itself"15 or "a deduction from what is owed"16 by a taxpayer to the government. Examples of tax credits are withheld taxes, payments of estimated tax, and investment tax credits.17

Tax credit should be understood in relation to other tax concepts. One of these is tax deduction -- defined as a subtraction "from income for tax purposes,"18 or an amount that is "allowed by law to reduce income prior to [the] application of the tax rate to compute the amount of tax which is due."19 An example of a tax deduction is any of the allowable deductions enumerated in Section 3420 of the Tax Code.A tax credit differs from a tax deduction. On the one hand, a tax credit reduces the tax due, including -- whenever applicable -- the income tax that is determined after applying the corresponding tax rates to taxable income.21 Atax deduction, on the other, reduces the income that is subject to tax22 in order to arrive at taxable income.23 To think of the former as the latter is to avoid, if not entirely confuse, the issue. A tax credit is used only after the tax has been computed; a tax deduction, before.Tax Liability Requiredfor   Tax Credit Since a tax credit is used to reduce directly the tax that is due, there ought to be a tax liability before the tax creditcan be applied. Without that liability, any tax credit application will be useless. There will be no reason for deducting the latter when there is, to begin with, no

19

existing obligation to the government. However, as will be presented shortly, the existence of a tax credit or its grant by law is not the same as the availment or use of such credit. While the grant is mandatory, the availment or use is not.If a net loss is reported by, and no other taxes are currently due from, a business establishment, there will obviously be no tax liability against which any tax credit can be applied.24 For the establishment to choose the immediate availment of a tax credit will be premature and impracticable. Nevertheless, the irrefutable fact remains that, under RA 7432, Congress has granted without conditions a tax credit benefit to all covered establishments.Although this tax credit benefit is available, it need not be used by losing ventures, since there is no tax liability that calls for its application. Neither can it be reduced to nil by the quick yet callow stroke of an administrative pen, simply because no reduction of taxes can instantly be effected. By its nature, the tax credit may still be deducted from a future, not a present, tax liability, without which it does not have any use. In the meantime, it need not move. But it breathes.Prior Tax Payments NotRequired for   Tax Credit While a tax liability is essential to the availment or use of any tax credit, prior tax payments are not. On the contrary, for the existence or grant solely of such credit, neither a tax liability nor a prior tax payment is needed. The Tax Code is in fact replete with provisions granting or allowing tax credits, even though no taxes have been previously paid.For example, in computing the estate tax due, Section 86(E) allows a tax credit -- subject to certain limitations -- for estate taxes paid to a foreign country. Also found in Section 101(C) is a similar provision for donor’s taxes -- again when paid to a foreign country -- in computing for the donor’s tax due. The tax credits in both instances allude to the prior payment of taxes, even if not made to our government.Under Section 110, a VAT (Value-Added Tax)- registered person engaging in transactions -- whether or not subject to the VAT -- is also allowed a tax credit that includes a ratable portion of any input tax not directly attributable to either activity. This input tax may either be the VAT on the purchase or importation of goods or services that is merely due from -- not necessarily paid by -- such VAT-registered person in the course of trade or business; or the transitional input tax determined in accordance with Section 111(A). The latter type may in fact be an amount equivalent to only eight percent of the value of a VAT-registered person’s beginning inventory of goods, materials and supplies, when such amount -- as computed -- is higher than the actual VAT paid on the

said items.25 Clearly from this provision, the tax credit refers to an input tax that is either due only or given a value by mere comparison with the VAT actually paid -- then later prorated. No tax is actually paid prior to the availment of such credit.In Section 111(B), a one and a half percent input tax credit that is merely presumptive is allowed. For the purchase of primary agricultural products used as inputs -- either in the processing of sardines, mackerel and milk, or in the manufacture of refined sugar and cooking oil -- and for the contract price of public work contracts entered into with the government, again, no prior tax payments are needed for the use of the tax credit.More important, a VAT-registered person whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated may, under Section 112(A), apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate for the amount of creditable input taxes merely due -- again not necessarily paid to -- the government and attributable to such sales, to the extent that the input taxes have not been applied against output taxes.26 Where a taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales and also in taxable or exempt sales, the amount of creditable input taxes due that are not directly and entirely attributable to any one of these transactions shall be proportionately allocated on the basis of the volume of sales. Indeed, in availing of such tax credit for VAT purposes, this provision -- as well as the one earlier mentioned -- shows that the prior payment of taxes is not a requisite.It may be argued that Section 28(B)(5)(b) of the Tax Code is another illustration of a tax credit allowed, even though no prior tax payments are not required. Specifically, in this provision, the imposition of a final withholding tax rate on cash and/or property dividends received by a nonresident foreign corporation from a domestic corporation is subjected to the condition that a foreign tax credit will be given by the domiciliary country in an amount equivalent to taxes that are merely deemed paid.27 Although true, this provision actually refers to the tax credit as a condition only for the imposition of a lower tax rate, not as a deduction from the corresponding tax liability. Besides, it is not our government but the domiciliary country that credits against the income tax payable to the latter by the foreign corporation, the tax to be foregone or spared.28

In contrast, Section 34(C)(3), in relation to Section 34(C)(7)(b), categorically allows as credits, against the income tax imposable under Title II, the amount of income taxes merely incurred -- not necessarily paid -- by a domestic corporation during a taxable year in any foreign country. Moreover, Section 34(C)(5) provides that for such taxes incurred but not paid, a tax credit may be allowed, subject to the condition precedent that the taxpayer shall

20

simply give a bond with sureties satisfactory to and approved by petitioner, in such sum as may be required; and further conditioned upon payment by the taxpayer of any tax found due, upon petitioner’s redetermination of it.In addition to the above-cited provisions in the Tax Code, there are also tax treaties and special laws that grant or allow tax credits, even though no prior tax payments have been made.Under the treaties in which the tax credit method is used as a relief to avoid double taxation, income that is taxed in the state of source is also taxable in the state of residence, but the tax paid in the former is merely allowed as a credit against the tax levied in the latter.29 Apparently, payment is made to the state of source, not the state of residence. No tax, therefore, has been previously paid to the latter.Under special laws that particularly affect businesses, there can also be tax credit incentives. To illustrate, the incentives provided for in Article 48 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1789, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 391, include tax credits equivalent to either five percent of the net value earned, or five or ten percent of the net local content of exports.30 In order to avail of such credits under the said law and still achieve its objectives, no prior tax payments are necessary.From all the foregoing instances, it is evident that prior tax payments are not indispensable to the availment of atax credit. Thus, the CA correctly held that the availment under RA 7432 did not require prior tax payments by private establishments concerned.31 However, we do not agree with its finding32 that the carry-over of tax creditsunder the said special law to succeeding taxable periods, and even their application against internal revenue taxes, did not necessitate the existence of a tax liability.The examples above show that a tax liability is certainly important in the availment or use, not the existence or grant, of a tax credit. Regarding this matter, a private establishment reporting a net loss in its financial statements is no different from another that presents a net income. Both are entitled to the tax credit provided for under RA 7432, since the law itself accords that unconditional benefit. However, for the losing establishment to immediately apply such credit, where no tax is due, will be an improvident usance.Sections 2.i and 4 of RevenueRegulations No. 2-94 ErroneousRA 7432 specifically allows private establishments to claim as tax credit the amount of discounts they grant.33 In turn, the Implementing Rules and Regulations, issued pursuant thereto, provide the procedures for its availment.34 To deny such credit, despite the plain

mandate of the law and the regulations carrying out that mandate, is indefensible.First, the definition given by petitioner is erroneous. It refers to tax credit as the amount representing the 20 percent discount that "shall be deducted by the said establishments from their gross income for income tax purposes and from their gross sales for value-added tax or other percentage tax purposes."35 In ordinary business language, the tax credit represents the amount of such discount. However, the manner by which the discount shall be credited against taxes has not been clarified by the revenue regulations.By ordinary acceptation, a discount is an "abatement or reduction made from the gross amount or value of anything."36 To be more precise, it is in business parlance "a deduction or lowering of an amount of money;"37 or "a reduction from the full amount or value of something, especially a price."38 In business there are many kinds of discount, the most common of which is that affecting the income statement39 or financial report upon which theincome tax is based.Business DiscountsDeducted from   Gross Sales A cash discount, for example, is one granted by business establishments to credit customers for their prompt payment.40 It is a "reduction in price offered to the purchaser if payment is made within a shorter period of time than the maximum time specified."41 Also referred to as a sales discount on the part of the seller and a purchase discount on the part of the buyer, it may be expressed in such terms as "5/10, n/30."42

A quantity discount, however, is a "reduction in price allowed for purchases made in large quantities, justified by savings in packaging, shipping, and handling."43 It is also called a volume or bulk discount.44

A "percentage reduction from the list price x x x allowed by manufacturers to wholesalers and by wholesalers to retailers"45 is known as a trade discount. No entry for it need be made in the manual or computerized books of accounts, since the purchase or sale is already valued at the net price actually charged the buyer.46 The purpose for the discount is to encourage trading or increase sales, and the prices at which the purchased goods may be resold are also suggested.47 Even a chain discount -- a series of discounts from one list price -- is recorded at net.48

Finally, akin to a trade discount is a functional discount. It is "a supplier’s price discount given to a purchaser based on the [latter’s] role in the [former’s] distribution system."49 This role usually involves warehousing or advertising.Based on this discussion, we find that the nature of a sales discount is peculiar. Applying generally accepted

21

accounting principles (GAAP) in the country, this type of discount is reflected in the income statement50 as a line item deducted -- along with returns, allowances, rebates and other similar expenses -- from gross sales to arrive atnet sales.51 This type of presentation is resorted to, because the accounts receivable and sales figures that arise from sales discounts, -- as well as from quantity, volume or bulk discounts -- are recorded in the manual and computerized books of accounts and reflected in the financial statements at the gross amounts of the invoices.52This manner of recording credit sales -- known as the gross method -- is most widely used, because it is simple, more convenient to apply than the net method, and produces no material errors over time.53

However, under the net method used in recording trade, chain or functional discounts, only the net amounts of the invoices -- after the discounts have been deducted -- are recorded in the books of accounts54 and reflected in the financial statements. A separate line item cannot be shown,55 because the transactions themselves involving bothaccounts receivable and sales have already been entered into, net of the said discounts.The term sales discounts is not expressly defined in the Tax Code, but one provision adverts to amounts whose sum -- along with sales returns, allowances and cost of goods sold56 -- is deducted from gross sales to come up with the gross income, profit or margin57 derived from business.58 In another provision therein, sales discountsthat are granted and indicated in the invoices at the time of sale -- and that do not depend upon the happening of any future event -- may be excluded from the gross sales within the same quarter they were given.59 While determinative only of the VAT, the latter provision also appears as a suitable reference point for income tax purposes already embraced in the former. After all, these two provisions affirm that sales discounts are amounts that are always deductible from gross sales.Reason for the Senior Citizen Discount:The Law, Not Prompt PaymentA distinguishing feature of the implementing rules of RA 7432 is the private establishment’s outright deduction of the discount from the invoice price of the medicine sold to the senior citizen.60 It is, therefore, expected that for each retail sale made under this law, the discount period lasts no more than a day, because such discount is given -- and the net amount thereof collected -- immediately upon perfection of the sale.61 Although prompt payment is made for an arm’s-length transaction by the senior citizen, the real and compelling reason for the private establishment giving the discount is that the law itself makes it mandatory.

What RA 7432 grants the senior citizen is a mere discount privilege, not a sales discount or any of the above discounts in particular. Prompt payment is not the reason for (although a necessary consequence of) such grant. To be sure, the privilege enjoyed by the senior citizen must be equivalent to the tax credit benefit enjoyed by the private establishment granting the discount. Yet, under the revenue regulations promulgated by our tax authorities, this benefit has been erroneously likened and confined to a sales discount.To a senior citizen, the monetary effect of the privilege may be the same as that resulting from a sales discount. However, to a private establishment, the effect is different from a simple reduction in price that results from such discount. In other words, the tax credit benefit is not the same as a sales discount. To repeat from our earlier discourse, this benefit cannot and should not be treated as a tax deduction.To stress, the effect of a sales discount on the income statement and income tax return of an establishment covered by RA 7432 is different from that resulting from the availment or use of its tax credit benefit. While the former is a deduction before, the latter is a deduction after, the income tax is computed. As mentioned earlier, a discount is not necessarily a sales discount, and a tax credit for a simple discount privilege should not be automatically treated like a sales discount. Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus. Where the law does not distinguish, we ought not to distinguish.Sections 2.i and 4 of Revenue Regulations No. (RR) 2-94 define tax credit as the 20 percent discount deductible from gross income for income tax purposes, or from gross sales for VAT or other percentage tax purposes. In effect, the tax credit benefit under RA 7432 is related to a sales discount. This contrived definition is improper, considering that the latter has to be deducted from gross sales in order to compute the gross income in theincome statement and cannot be deducted again, even for purposes of computing the income tax.When the law says that the cost of the discount may be claimed as a tax credit, it means that the amount -- when claimed -- shall be treated as a reduction from any tax liability, plain and simple. The option to avail of the tax credit benefit depends upon the existence of a tax liability, but to limit the benefit to a sales discount -- which is not even identical to the discount privilege that is granted by law -- does not define it at all and serves no useful purpose. The definition must, therefore, be stricken down.Laws Not Amendedby RegulationsSecond, the law cannot be amended by a mere regulation. In fact, a regulation that "operates to create a

22

rule out of harmony with the statute is a mere nullity";62 it cannot prevail.It is a cardinal rule that courts "will and should respect the contemporaneous construction placed upon a statute by the executive officers whose duty it is to enforce it x x x."63 In the scheme of judicial tax administration, the need for certainty and predictability in the implementation of tax laws is crucial.64 Our tax authorities fill in the details that "Congress may not have the opportunity or competence to provide."65 The regulations these authorities issue are relied upon by taxpayers, who are certain that these will be followed by the courts.66 Courts, however, will not uphold these authorities’ interpretations when clearly absurd, erroneous or improper.In the present case, the tax authorities have given the term tax credit in Sections 2.i and 4 of RR 2-94 a meaning utterly in contrast to what RA 7432 provides. Their interpretation has muddled up the intent of Congress in granting a mere discount privilege, not a sales discount. The administrative agency issuing these regulations may not enlarge, alter or restrict the provisions of the law it administers; it cannot engraft additional requirements not contemplated by the legislature.67

In case of conflict, the law must prevail.68 A "regulation adopted pursuant to law is law."69 Conversely, a regulation or any portion thereof not adopted pursuant to law is no law and has neither the force nor the effect of law.70

Availment of TaxCredit Voluntary

Third, the word may in the text of the statute71 implies that the availability of the tax credit benefit is neither unrestricted nor mandatory.72 There is no absolute right conferred upon respondent, or any similar taxpayer, to avail itself of the tax credit remedy whenever it chooses; "neither does it impose a duty on the part of the government to sit back and allow an important facet of tax collection to be at the sole control and discretion of the taxpayer."73 For the tax authorities to compel respondent to deduct the 20 percent discount from either its gross income or its gross sales74 is, therefore, not only to make an imposition without basis in law, but also to blatantly contravene the law itself.What Section 4.a of RA 7432 means is that the tax credit benefit is merely permissive, not imperative. Respondent is given two options -- either to claim or not to claim the cost of the discounts as a tax credit. In fact, it may even ignore the credit and simply consider the gesture as an act of beneficence, an expression of its social conscience.

Granting that there is a tax liability and respondent claims such cost as a tax credit, then the tax credit can easily be applied. If there is none, the credit cannot be used and will just have to be carried over and revalidated75accordingly. If, however, the business continues to operate at a loss and no other taxes are due, thus compelling it to close shop, the credit can never be applied and will be lost altogether.In other words, it is the existence or the lack of a tax liability that determines whether the cost of the discounts can be used as a tax credit. RA 7432 does not give respondent the unfettered right to avail itself of the credit whenever it pleases. Neither does it allow our tax administrators to expand or contract the legislative mandate. "The ‘plain meaning rule’ or verba legis in statutory construction is thus applicable x x x. Where the words of a statute are clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation."76

Tax Credit BenefitDeemed   Just Compensation Fourth, Sections 2.i and 4 of RR 2-94 deny the exercise by the State of its power of eminent domain. Be it stressed that the privilege enjoyed by senior citizens does not come directly from the State, but rather from the private establishments concerned. Accordingly, the tax credit benefit granted to these establishments can be deemed as their just compensation for private property taken by the State for public use.77

The concept of public use is no longer confined to the traditional notion of use by the public, but held synonymous with public interest, public benefit, public welfare, and public convenience.78 The discount privilege to which our senior citizens are entitled is actually a benefit enjoyed by the general public to which these citizens belong. The discounts given would have entered the coffers and formed part of the gross sales of the private establishments concerned, were it not for RA 7432. The permanent reduction in their total revenues is a forced subsidy corresponding to the taking of private property for public use or benefit.As a result of the 20 percent discount imposed by RA 7432, respondent becomes entitled to a just compensation. This term refers not only to the issuance of a tax credit certificate indicating the correct amount of the discounts given, but also to the promptness in its release. Equivalent to the payment of property taken by the State, such issuance -- when not done within a reasonable time from the grant of the discounts -- cannot be considered as just compensation. In effect, respondent is made to suffer the consequences of being immediately deprived of its revenues while awaiting actual receipt, through the certificate, of the equivalent

23

amount it needs to cope with the reduction in its revenues.79

Besides, the taxation power can also be used as an implement for the exercise of the power of eminent domain.80Tax measures are but "enforced contributions exacted on pain of penal sanctions"81 and "clearly imposed for apublic purpose."82 In recent years, the power to tax has indeed become a most effective tool to realize social justice, public welfare, and the equitable distribution of wealth.83

While it is a declared commitment under Section 1 of RA 7432, social justice "cannot be invoked to trample on the rights of property owners who under our Constitution and laws are also entitled to protection. The social justice consecrated in our [C]onstitution [is] not intended to take away rights from a person and give them to another who is not entitled thereto."84 For this reason, a just compensation for income that is taken away from respondent becomes necessary. It is in the tax credit that our legislators find support to realize social justice, and no administrative body can alter that fact.To put it differently, a private establishment that merely breaks even85 -- without the discounts yet -- will surely start to incur losses because of such discounts. The same effect is expected if its mark-up is less than 20 percent, and if all its sales come from retail purchases by senior citizens. Aside from the observation we have already raised earlier, it will also be grossly unfair to an establishment if the discounts will be treated merely as deductions from either its gross income or its gross sales. Operating at a loss through no fault of its own, it will realize that thetax credit limitation under RR 2-94 is inutile, if not improper. Worse, profit-generating businesses will be put in a better position if they avail themselves of tax credits denied those that are losing, because no taxes are due from the latter.Grant of   Tax Credit Intended by the LegislatureFifth, RA 7432 itself seeks to adopt measures whereby senior citizens are assisted by the community as a whole and to establish a program beneficial to them.86 These objectives are consonant with the constitutional policy of making "health x x x services available to all the people at affordable cost"87 and of giving "priority for the needs of the x x x elderly."88 Sections 2.i and 4 of RR 2-94, however, contradict these constitutional policies and statutory objectives.Furthermore, Congress has allowed all private establishments a simple tax credit, not a deduction. In fact, no cash outlay is required from the government for the availment or use of such credit. The deliberations on February 5, 1992 of the Bicameral Conference Committee Meeting on Social Justice, which finalized RA 7432, disclose the true intent of our legislators to treat

the sales discounts as a tax credit, rather than as a deduction from gross income. We quote from those deliberations as follows:"THE CHAIRMAN (Rep. Unico). By the way, before that ano, about deductions from taxable income. I think we incorporated there a provision na - on the responsibility of the private hospitals and drugstores, hindi ba?SEN. ANGARA. Oo.THE CHAIRMAN. (Rep. Unico), So, I think we have to put in also a provision here about the deductions from taxable income of that private hospitals, di ba ganon 'yan?MS. ADVENTO. Kaya lang po sir, and mga discounts po nila affecting government and public institutions, so, puwede na po nating hindi isama yung mga less deductions ng taxable income.THE CHAIRMAN. (Rep. Unico). Puwede na. Yung about the private hospitals. Yung isiningit natin?MS. ADVENTO. Singit na po ba yung 15% on credit. (inaudible/did not use the microphone).SEN. ANGARA. Hindi pa, hindi pa.THE CHAIRMAN. (Rep. Unico) Ah, 'di pa ba naisama natin?SEN. ANGARA. Oo. You want to insert that?THE CHAIRMAN (Rep. Unico). Yung ang proposal ni Senator Shahani, e.SEN. ANGARA. In the case of private hospitals they got the grant of 15% discount, provided that, the private hospitals can claim the expense as a tax credit.REP. AQUINO. Yah could be allowed as deductions in the perpetrations of (inaudible) income.SEN. ANGARA. I-tax credit na lang natin para walang cash-out ano?REP. AQUINO. Oo, tax credit. Tama, Okay. Hospitals ba o lahat ng establishments na covered.THE CHAIRMAN. (Rep. Unico). Sa kuwan lang yon, as private hospitals lang.REP. AQUINO. Ano ba yung establishments na covered?SEN. ANGARA. Restaurant lodging houses, recreation centers.REP. AQUINO. All establishments covered siguro?SEN. ANGARA. From all establishments. Alisin na natin 'Yung kuwan kung ganon. Can we go back to Section 4 ha?REP. AQUINO. Oho.SEN. ANGARA. Letter A. To capture that thought, we'll say the grant of 20% discount from all establishments et cetera, et cetera, provided that said establishments - provided that private establishments may claim the cost as a tax credit. Ganon ba 'yon?REP. AQUINO. Yah.SEN. ANGARA. Dahil kung government, they don't need to claim it.

24

THE CHAIRMAN. (Rep. Unico). Tax credit.SEN. ANGARA. As a tax credit [rather] than a kuwan - deduction, Okay.REP. AQUINO Okay.SEN. ANGARA. Sige Okay. Di subject to style na lang sa Letter A".89

Special LawOver General LawSixth and last, RA 7432 is a special law that should prevail over the Tax Code -- a general law. "x x x [T]he rule is that on a specific matter the special law shall prevail over the general law, which shall be resorted to only to supply deficiencies in the former."90 In addition, "[w]here there are two statutes, the earlier special and the later general -- the terms of the general broad enough to include the matter provided for in the special -- the fact that one is special and the other is general creates a presumption that the special is to be considered as remaining an exception to the general,91 one as a general law of the land, the other as the law of a particular case."92 "It is a canon of statutory construction that a later statute, general in its terms and not expressly repealing a prior special statute, will ordinarily not affect the special provisions of such earlier statute."93

RA 7432 is an earlier law not expressly repealed by, and therefore remains an exception to, the Tax Code -- a later law. When the former states that a tax credit may be claimed, then the requirement of prior tax payments under certain provisions of the latter, as discussed above, cannot be made to apply. Neither can the instances of or references to a tax deduction under the Tax Code94 be made to restrict RA 7432. No provision of any revenue regulation can supplant or modify the acts of Congress.WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.SO ORDERED.

25