·~ ,.

l\epublic of tbe ~bilippine~

~upreme (!Court
;iffilanila
SECOND DIVISION

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., G.R. No. 198759

Petitioner,
Present:
-versus- CARPIO, J, Chairperson,
BRION,
DEL CASTILLO,
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL PEREZ, and
REVENUE, PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ
Respondent.
Promulgated:

'JUL o 1 iOn~~
X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~:~·
DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari 1 assailing the

May 9, 2011 Decision 2 and September 16, 2011 Resolution3 of the Court of
Tax Appeals (CTA) En Bane in CTA EB Case No. 588 which denied
petitioner Philippine Airlines, Inc.'s (PAL) claim for refund of the excise
· taxes imposed on its purchase of petroleum products from Caltex
Philippines, Inc. (Caltex).

The Facts

For the period July 24 to 28, 2004, Caltex sold 804,370 liters of
imported Jet A-1 fuel to PAL for the latter's domestic operations. 4
Consequently, on July 26, 27, 28 and 29, 2004, Caltex electronically filed
with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) its Excise Tax Returns for
Rollo, pp. 13-50.
!d. at 64-85. Penned by Associate Justice Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, with Presiding Justice Em~sto D.
Acosta (on wellness leave), and Associate Justices Juanito C. Castaneda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista,
Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova (on wellness·leave), Olga Palanca-Enriquez, Esperanza R. Fabon-
Victorino, and Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas, concurring.
!d. at 55-63. Penned by Associate Justice Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, with Presiding Justice Emesto D.
Acosta, and Associate Justices Juanito C. Castaneda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A.
Casanova, Olga Palanca-Enriquez, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, and Amelia R. Cotangco-
Manalastas, concurring.
!d. at 68.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 198759
 

Petroleum Products, declaring the amounts of P1,232,798.80, P686,767.10,

P623,422.90 and P433,904.10, respectively, or a total amount of
P2,975,892.90, as excise taxes due thereon. 5

On August 3, 2004, PAL received from Caltex an Aviation Billing

Invoice for the purchased aviation fuel in the amount of US$313,949.54,
reflecting the amount of US$52,669.33 as the related excise taxes on the
transaction. This was confirmed by Caltex in a Certification dated August
20, 2004 where it indicated that: (a) the excise taxes it paid on the imported
petroleum products amounted to P2,952,037.90, i.e., the peso equivalent of
the abovementioned dollar amount; (b) the foregoing excise tax payment
was passed on by it to PAL; and (c) it did not file any claim for the refund of
the said excise tax with the BIR.6

On October 29, 2004, PAL, through a letter-request dated October 15,

2004 addressed to respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR),
sought a refund of the excise taxes passed on to it by Caltex. It hinged its tax
refund claim on its operating franchise, i.e., Presidential Decree No. 15907
issued on June 11, 1978 (PAL’s franchise), which conferred upon it certain
tax exemption privileges on its purchase and/or importation of aviation gas,
fuel and oil, including those which are passed on to it by the seller and/or
importer thereof. Further, PAL asserted that it had the legal personality to
file the aforesaid tax refund claim.8

Due to the CIR’s inaction, PAL filed a Petition for Review with the
CTA on July 25, 2006.9 In its Answer, the CIR averred that since the excise
taxes were paid by Caltex, PAL had no cause of action.10

The CTA Division Ruling

Relying on Silkair (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. CIR11 (Silkair), the CTA

Second Division denied PAL’s petition on the ground that only a statutory
taxpayer (referring to Caltex in this case) may seek a refund of the excise
taxes it paid.12 It added that even if the tax burden was shifted to PAL, the
latter cannot be deemed a statutory taxpayer.

It further ruled that PAL’s claim for refund should be denied

altogether on account of Letter of Instruction No. 1483 (LOI 1483) which

                                                            
5
Id. at 68-69.
6
Id.
7
“AN ACT GRANTING A NEW FRANCHISE TO PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. TO ESTABLISH, OPERATE AND
MAINTAIN AIR-TRANSPORT SERVICES IN THE PHILIPPINES AND OTHER COUNTRIES.”
8
Rollo, pp. 69-70.
9
Id. at 70.
10
Id.
11
G.R. No. 173594, February 6, 2008, 544 SCRA 100.
12
Rollo, p. 112-113.

 
Decision 3 G.R. No. 198759
 

already withdrew the tax exemption privileges previously granted to PAL on

its purchase of domestic petroleum products, of which the transaction
between PAL and Caltex was characterized. 13

PAL moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied in a

Resolution14 dated January 14, 2010, prompting it to elevate the matter to
the CTA En Banc.

The CTA En Banc Ruling

In a Decision dated May 9, 2011,15 the CTA En Banc affirmed the

ruling of the CTA Second Division, reiterating that it was Caltex, the
statutory taxpayer, which had the personality to file the subject refund claim.
It explained that the payment of the subject excise taxes, being in the nature
of indirect taxes, remained to be the direct liability of Caltex. While the tax
burden may have been shifted to PAL, the liability passed on to it should not
be treated as a tax but a part of the purchase price which PAL had to pay to
obtain the goods.16 Further, it held that PAL’s exemption privileges on the
said excise taxes, which it claimed through its franchise, had already been
withdrawn by LOI 1483.17

Aggrieved, PAL filed a motion for reconsideration which was,

however, denied in a Resolution dated September 16, 2011.18

Hence, the instant petition.

The Issues Before the Court

The following issues have been presented for the Court’s resolution:
(a) whether PAL has the legal personality to file a claim for refund of the
passed on excise taxes; (b) whether the sale of imported aviation fuel by
Caltex to PAL is covered by LOI 1483 which withdrew the tax exemption
privileges of PAL on its purchases of domestic petroleum products for use in
its domestic operations; and (c) whether PAL has sufficiently proved its
entitlement to refund.

The Ruling of the Court

The petition is meritorious.

                                                            
13
Id. at 116-124.
14
Id. at 87-102. Penned by Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy, with Associate Justices Juanito C. Castañeda,
Jr. and Olga Palanca-Enriquez, concurring.
15
Id. at 64-85.
16
Id. at 80.
17
Id. at 81-82.
18
Id. at 55-63.

 
Decision 4 G.R. No. 198759
 

A. PAL’s legal personality to file

a claim for refund of excise taxes.

The CIR argues that PAL has no personality to file the subject tax
refund claim because it is not the statutory taxpayer. As basis, it relies on the
Silkair ruling which enunciates that the proper party to question, or to seek a
refund of an indirect tax, is the statutory taxpayer, or the person on whom
the tax is imposed by law and who paid the same, even if the burden to pay
such was shifted to another.19

PAL counters that the doctrine laid down in Silkair is inapplicable,

asserting that it has the legal personality to file the subject tax refund claim
on account of its tax exemption privileges under its legislative franchise
which covers both direct and indirect taxes. In support thereof, it cites the
case of Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.20 (Maceda).

The Court agrees with PAL.

Under Section 129 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC),21

as amended, excise taxes are imposed on two (2) kinds of goods, namely: (a)
goods manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sales or
consumption or for any other disposition; and (b) things imported.22

With respect to the first kind of goods, Section 130 of the NIRC states
that, unless otherwise specifically allowed, the taxpayer obligated to file the
return and pay the excise taxes due thereon is the manufacturer/producer.23

On the other hand, with respect to the second kind of goods, Section
131 of the NIRC states that the taxpayer obligated to file the return and pay
the excise taxes due thereon is the owner or importer, unless the imported
articles are exempt from excise taxes and the person found to be in

                                                            
19
Id. at 153-161.
20
G.R. No. 88291, June 8, 1993, 223 SCRA 217. This is the resolution denying the petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration of the Court’s May 31, 1991 Decision in the same case and in effect, upholding the
tax refund claim of the National Power Corporation.
21
Republic Act No. 8424, otherwise known as the “Tax Reform Act of 1997.”
22
SEC. 129. Goods Subject to Excise Taxes. - Excise taxes apply to goods manufactured or produced
in the Philippines for domestic sales or consumption or for any other disposition and to things
imported. The excise tax imposed herein shall be in addition to the value-added tax imposed under
Title IV. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
xxxx
23
SEC. 130. Filing of Return and Payment of Excise Tax on Domestic Products. -
(A) Persons Liable to File a Return, Filing of Return on Removal and Payment of Tax. –
xxxx
(2) Time for Filing of Return and Payment of the Tax. - Unless otherwise specifically allowed, the
return shall be filed and the excise tax paid by the manufacturer or producer before removal
of domestic products form place of production x x x. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
xxxx

 
Decision 5 G.R. No. 198759
 

possession of the same is other than those legally entitled to such tax
exemption.24

While the NIRC mandates the foregoing persons to pay the applicable
excise taxes directly to the government, they may, however, shift the
economic burden of such payments to someone else – usually the purchaser
of the goods – since excise taxes are considered as a kind of indirect tax.

Jurisprudence states that indirect taxes are those which are demanded
in the first instance from one person with the expectation and intention that
he can shift the economic burden to someone else.25 In this regard, the
statutory taxpayer can transfer to its customers the value of the excise taxes
it paid or would be liable to pay to the government by treating it as part of
the cost of the goods and tacking it on to the selling price.26 Notably, this
shifting process, otherwise known as “passing on,” is largely a contractual
affair between the parties. Meaning, even if the purchaser effectively pays
the value of the tax, the manufacturer/producer (in case of goods
manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sales or
consumption or for any other disposition) or the owner or importer (in case
of imported goods) are still regarded as the statutory taxpayers under the
law. To this end, the purchaser does not really pay the tax; rather, he only
pays the seller more for the goods because of the latter’s obligation to the
government as the statutory taxpayer.27

In this relation, Section 204(c)28 of the NIRC states that it is the

statutory taxpayer which has the legal personality to file a claim for refund.
Accordingly, in cases involving excise tax exemptions on petroleum
products under Section 13529 of the NIRC, the Court has consistently held
                                                            
24
SEC. 131. Payment of Excise Taxes on Imported Articles. -
(A) Persons Liable. - Excise taxes on imported articles shall be paid by the owner or importer to
the Customs Officers, conformably with the regulations of the Department of Finance and before the
release of such articles from the customshouse, or by the person who is found in possession of articles
which are exempt from excise taxes other than those legally entitled to exemption. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
25
CIR v. John Gotamco & Sons, Inc., G.R. No. L- 31092, February 27, 1987, 148 SCRA 36, 40.
26
See Silkair Singapore Pte. Ltd. v. CIR, G.R. Nos. 171383 & 172379, November 14, 2008, 571 SCRA
141, 156.
27
Exxonmobil Petroleum and Chemical Holdings, Inc.-Philippine Branch v. CIR, G.R. No. 180909,
January 19, 2011, 640 SCRA 203, 222, citing Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ opinion in Lash’s
Products v. United States, 278 U.S. 175 (1928).
28
SEC. 204. Authority of the Commissioner to Compromise, Abate, and Refund or Credit Taxes. The
Commissioner may –
xxxx
(C) Credit or refund taxes erroneously or illegally received or penalties imposed without authority,
refund the value of internal revenue stamps when they are returned in good condition by the purchaser,
and, in his discretion, redeem or change unused stamps that have been rendered unfit for use and
refund their value upon proof of destruction. No credit or refund of taxes or penalties shall be
allowed unless the taxpayer files in writing with the Commissioner a claim for credit or
refund within two (2) years after the payment of the tax or penalty: Provided, however, That a return
filed showing an overpayment shall be considered as a written claim for credit or refund. (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied)
29
SEC. 135. Petroleum Products Sold to International Carriers and Exempt Entities or Agencies. -
Petroleum products sold to the following are exempt from excise tax:

 
Decision 6 G.R. No. 198759
 

that it is the statutory taxpayer who is entitled to claim a tax refund based
thereon and not the party who merely bears its economic burden.30

For instance, in the Silkair case, Silkair (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (Silkair
Singapore) filed a claim for tax refund based on Section 135(b) of the NIRC
as well as Article 4(2)31 of the Air Transport Agreement between the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the
Republic of Singapore. The Court denied Silkair Singapore’s refund claim
since the tax exemptions under both provisions were conferred on the
statutory taxpayer, and not the party who merely bears its economic burden.
As such, it was the Petron Corporation (the statutory taxpayer in that case)
which was entitled to invoke the applicable tax exemptions and not Silkair
Singapore which merely shouldered the economic burden of the tax. As
explained in Silkair:
The proper party to question, or seek a refund of, an indirect
tax is the statutory taxpayer, the person on whom the tax is imposed
by law and who paid the same even if he shifts the burden thereof to
another. Section 130(A)(2) of the NIRC provides that “[u]nless otherwise
specifically allowed, the return shall be filed and the excise tax paid by the
manufacturer or producer before removal of domestic products from place
of production.” Thus, Petron Corporation, not Silkair, is the statutory
taxpayer which is entitled to claim a refund based on Section 135 of the
NIRC of 1997 and Article 4(2) of the Air Transport Agreement between
RP and Singapore.

Even if Petron Corporation passed on to Silkair the burden of the

tax, the additional amount billed to Silkair for jet fuel is not a tax but part
of the price which Silkair had to pay as a purchaser.32 (Emphasis supplied)

However, the abovementioned rule should not apply to instances

where the law clearly grants the party to which the economic burden of the
tax is shifted an exemption from both direct and indirect taxes. In which
case, the latter must be allowed to claim a tax refund even if it is not
                                                                                                                                                                                 
(a) International carriers of Philippine or foreign registry on their use or consumption outside the
Philippines: Provided, That the petroleum products sold to these international carriers shall be stored in
a bonded storage tank and may be disposed of only in accordance with the rules and regulations to be
prescribed by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner;
(b) Exempt entities or agencies covered by tax treaties, conventions and other international agreements
for their use of consumption: Provided, however, That the country of said foreign international carrier
or exempt entities or agencies exempts from similar taxes petroleum products sold to Philippine
carriers, entities or agencies; and
(c) Entities which are by law exempt from direct and indirect taxes.
30
See the three (3) subsequent Silkair cases namely: (a) Silkair Singapore Pte. Ltd. v. CIR, supra note 26;
(b) Silkair Singapore Pte. Ltd. v. CIR, G.R. No. 184398, February 25, 2010, 613 SCRA 638; and (c)
Silkair Singapore Pte. Ltd. v. CIR, G.R. No. 166482, January 25, 2012, 664 SCRA 33. See also
Exxonmobil Petroleum and Chemical Holdings, Inc. v. CIR, supra note 27.
31
Fuel, lubricants, spare parts, regular equipment and aircraft stores introduced into, or taken on board
aircraft in the territory of one Contracting party by, or on behalf of, a designated airline of the other
Contracting Party and intended solely for use in the operation of the agreed services shall, with the
exception of charges corresponding to the service performed, be exempt from the same customs duties,
inspection fees and other duties or taxes imposed in the territories of the first Contracting Party , even
when these supplies are to be used on the parts of the journey performed over the territory of the
Contracting Party in which they are introduced into or taken on board. The materials referred to above
may be required to be kept under customs supervision and control.
32
Supra note 11, at 112.

 
Decision 7 G.R. No. 198759
 

considered as the statutory taxpayer under the law. Precisely, this is the
peculiar circumstance which differentiates the Maceda case from Silkair.

To elucidate, in Maceda, the Court upheld the National Power

Corporation’s (NPC) claim for a tax refund since its own charter specifically
granted it an exemption from both direct and indirect taxes, viz:
x x x [T]he Court rules and declares that the oil companies which
supply bunker fuel oil to NPC have to pay the taxes imposed upon said
bunker fuel oil sold to NPC. By the very nature of indirect taxation, the
economic burden of such taxation is expected to be passed on through the
channels of commerce to the user or consumer of the goods sold. Because,
however, the NPC has been exempted from both direct and indirect
taxation, the NPC must be held exempted from absorbing the
economic burden of indirect taxation. This means, on the one hand, that
the oil companies which wish to sell to NPC absorb all or part of the
economic burden of the taxes previously paid to BIR, which they could
shift to NPC if NPC did not enjoy exemption from indirect taxes. This
means also, on the other hand, that the NPC may refuse to pay the part of
the "normal" purchase price of bunker fuel oil which represents all or part
of the taxes previously paid by the oil companies to BIR. If NPC
nonetheless purchases such oil from the oil companies — because to
do so may be more convenient and ultimately less costly for NPC than
NPC itself importing and hauling and storing the oil from overseas —
NPC is entitled to be reimbursed by the BIR for that part of the
buying price of NPC which verifiably represents the tax already paid
by the oil company-vendor to the BIR.33 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

Notably, the Court even discussed the Maceda ruling in Silkair,

highlighting the relevance of the exemptions in NPC’s charter to its claim
for tax refund:

Silkair nevertheless argues that it is exempt from indirect taxes

because the Air Transport Agreement between RP and Singapore grants
exemption "from the same customs duties, inspection fees and other duties
or taxes imposed in the territory of the first Contracting Party." It
invokes Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr. which upheld the claim for tax credit
or refund by the National Power Corporation (NPC) on the ground
that the NPC is exempt even from the payment of indirect taxes.

Silkair’s argument does not persuade. In Commissioner of Internal

Revenue v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, this Court
clarified the ruling in Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr., viz:

It may be so that in Maceda vs. Macaraig, Jr., the Court held

that an exemption from "all taxes" granted to the National Power
Corporation (NPC) under its charter includes both direct and indirect
taxes. But far from providing PLDT comfort, Maceda in fact supports
the case of herein petitioner, the correct lesson of Maceda being that an
exemption from "all taxes" excludes indirect taxes, unless the
exempting statute, like NPC’s charter, is so couched as to include
indirect tax from the exemption. Wrote the Court:

                                                            
33
Supra note 20, at 256.

 
Decision 8 G.R. No. 198759
 
x x x However, the amendment under
Republic Act No. 6395 enumerated the details
covered by the exemption. Subsequently, P.D. 380,
made even more specific the details of the exemption
of NPC to cover, among others, both direct and
indirect taxes on all petroleum products used in its
operation. Presidential Decree No. 938 [NPC’s
amended charter] amended the tax exemption by
simplifying the same law in general terms. It
succinctly exempts NPC from "all forms of taxes,
duties[,] fees…"

The use of the phrase "all forms" of taxes

demonstrates the intention of the law to give NPC all
the tax exemptions it has been enjoying before. . .

xxxx

It is evident from the provisions of P.D. No.

938 that its purpose is to maintain the tax exemption
of NPC from all forms of taxes including indirect
taxes as provided under R.A. No. 6395 and P.D. 380
if it is to attain its goals.

The exemption granted under Section 135(b) of the NIRC of 1997

and Article 4(2) of the Air Transport Agreement between RP and
Singapore cannot, without a clear showing of legislative intent, be
construed as including indirect taxes. Statutes granting tax exemptions
must be construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in
favor of the taxing authority, and if an exemption is found to exist, it must
not be enlarged by construction. 34 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Based on these rulings, it may be observed that the propriety of a tax

refund claim is hinged on the kind of exemption which forms its basis. If the
law confers an exemption from both direct or indirect taxes, a claimant is
entitled to a tax refund even if it only bears the economic burden of the
applicable tax. On the other hand, if the exemption conferred only applies to
direct taxes, then the statutory taxpayer is regarded as the proper party to file
the refund claim.

In this case, PAL’s franchise grants it an exemption from both direct

and indirect taxes on its purchase of petroleum products. Section 13 thereof
reads:
SEC. 13. In consideration of the franchise and rights hereby granted, the
grantee [PAL] shall pay to the Philippine Government during the life of
this franchise whichever of subsections (a) and (b) hereunder will result in
a lower tax:

(a) The basic corporate income tax based on the grantee's

annual net taxable income computed in accordance with the
provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code; or

(b) A franchise tax of two per cent (2%) of the gross

revenues derived by the grantee from all sources, without
distinction as to transport or nontransport operations;
provided, that with respect to international air-transport
                                                            
34
Supra note 11, at 112-114.

 
Decision 9 G.R. No. 198759
 

service, only the gross passenger, mail, and freight

revenues from its outgoing flights shall be subject to this
tax.

The tax paid by the grantee under either of the above alternatives
shall be in lieu of all other taxes, duties, royalties, registration, license,
and other fees and charges of any kind, nature, or description, imposed,
levied, established, assessed, or collected by any municipal, city,
provincial, or national authority or government agency, now or in the
future, including but not limited to the following:

1. All taxes, duties, charges, royalties, or fees due on local

purchases by the grantee of aviation gas, fuel, and oil, whether refined or
in crude form, and whether such taxes, duties, charges, royalties, or fees
are directly due from or imposable upon the purchaser or the seller,
producer, manufacturer, or importer of said petroleum products but
are billed or passed on the grantee either as part of the price or cost
thereof or by mutual agreement or other arrangement; provided, that
all such purchases by, sales or deliveries of aviation gas, fuel, and oil to
the grantee shall be for exclusive use in its transport and nontransport
operations and other activities incidental thereto;

2. All taxes, including compensating taxes, duties, charges,

royalties, or fees due on all importations by the grantee of aircraft,
engines, equipment, machinery, spare parts, accessories, commissary and
catering supplies, aviation gas, fuel, and oil, whether refined or in crude
form and other articles, supplies, or materials; provided, that such articles
or supplies or materials are imported for the use of the grantee in its
transport and transport operations and other activities incidental thereto
and are not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality, or price;
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
xxxx

Based on the above-cited provision, PAL’s payment of either the

basic corporate income tax or franchise tax, whichever is lower, shall be in
lieu of all other taxes, duties, royalties, registration, license, and other fees
and charges, except only real property tax.35 The phrase “in lieu of all other
taxes” includes but is not limited to taxes that are “directly due from or
imposable upon the purchaser or the seller, producer, manufacturer, or
importer of said petroleum products but are billed or passed on the grantee
either as part of the price or cost thereof or by mutual agreement or other
arrangement.”36 In other words, in view of PAL’s payment of either the
basic corporate income tax or franchise tax, whichever is lower, PAL is
exempt from paying: (a) taxes directly due from or imposable upon it as the
purchaser of the subject petroleum products; and (b) the cost of the taxes
billed or passed on to it by the seller, producer, manufacturer, or importer of
the said products either as part of the purchase price or by mutual agreement
or other arrangement. Therefore, given the foregoing direct and indirect tax
exemptions under its franchise, and applying the principles as above-
discussed, PAL is endowed with the legal standing to file the subject tax
                                                            
35
SEC. 13 of PAL’s franchise. See also CIR v. PAL, G.R. No. 180066, July 7, 2009, 592 SCRA 237,
250.
36
SEC. 13(b)(1) of PAL’s franchise.

 
Decision 10 G.R. No. 198759
 

refund claim, notwithstanding the fact that it is not the statutory taxpayer as
contemplated by law.

B. Coverage of LOI 1483.

LOI 1483 amended PAL’s franchise by withdrawing the tax

exemption privilege granted to PAL on its purchase of domestic petroleum
products for use in its domestic operations. It pertinently provides:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of

the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution,
do hereby order and direct that the tax-exemption privilege granted to
PAL on its purchase of domestic petroleum products for use in its
domestic operations is hereby withdrawn. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

On this score, the CIR contends that the purchase of the aviation fuel
imported by Caltex is a “purchase of domestic petroleum products” because
the same was not purchased abroad by PAL.

The Court disagrees.

Based on Section 13 of PAL’s franchise, PAL’s tax exemption

privileges on all taxes on aviation gas, fuel and oil may be classified into
three (3) kinds, namely: (a) all taxes due on PAL’s local purchase of
aviation gas, fuel and oil;37 (b) all taxes directly due from or imposable upon
the purchaser or the seller, producer, manufacturer, or importer of aviation
gas, fuel and oil but are billed or passed on to PAL;38 and (c), all taxes due
on all importations by PAL of aviation gas, fuel, and oil.39

Viewed within the context of excise taxes, it may be observed that the
first kind of tax privilege would be irrelevant to PAL since it is not liable
                                                            
37
The pertinent portion of PAL’s franchise reads:
1. All taxes, duties, charges, royalties, or fees due on local purchases by the grantee of
aviation gas, fuel, and oil, whether refined or in crude form x x x. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
38
The pertinent portion of PAL’s franchise reads:
x x x and whether such taxes, duties, charges, royalties, or fees are directly due
from or imposable upon the purchaser or the seller, producer, manufacturer, or importer
of said petroleum products but are billed or passed on the grantee either as part of the
price or cost thereof or by mutual agreement or other arrangement; (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
xxxx
39
The pertinent portion of PAL’s franchise reads:
2. All taxes, including compensating taxes, duties, charges, royalties, or fees due on all
importations by the grantee of aircraft, engines, equipment, machinery, spare parts,
accessories, commissary and catering supplies, aviation gas, fuel, and oil, whether refined
or in crude form and other articles, supplies, or materials; provided, that such articles or
supplies or materials are imported for the use of the grantee in its transport and transport
operations and other activities incidental thereto and are not locally available in
reasonable quantity, quality, or price; (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
xxxx

 
Decision 11 G.R. No. 198759
 

for excise taxes on locally manufactured/produced goods for domestic sale

or other disposition; based on Section 130 of the NIRC, it is the
manufacturer or producer, i.e., the local refinery, which is regarded as the
statutory taxpayer of the excise taxes due on the same. On the contrary,
when the economic burden of the applicable excise taxes is passed on to
PAL, it may assert two (2) tax exemptions under the second kind of tax
privilege namely, PAL’s exemptions on (a) passed on excise tax costs due
from the seller, manufacturer/producer in case of locally manufactured/
produced goods for domestic sale (first tax exemption under the second kind
of tax privilege); and (b) passed on excise tax costs due from the importer in
case of imported aviation gas, fuel and oil (second tax exemption under the
second kind of tax privilege). The second kind of tax privilege should, in
turn, be distinguished from the third kind of tax privilege which applies
when PAL itself acts as the importer of the foregoing petroleum products. In
the latter instance, PAL is not merely regarded as the party to whom the
economic burden of the excise taxes is shifted to but rather, it stands as the
statutory taxpayer directly liable to the government for the same.40

In view of the foregoing, the Court observes that the phrase “purchase
of domestic petroleum products for use in its domestic operations” – which
characterizes the tax privilege LOI 1483 withdrew – refers only to PAL’s
tax exemptions on passed on excise tax costs due from the seller,
manufacturer/producer of locally manufactured/ produced goods for
domestic sale41 and does not, in any way, pertain to any of PAL’s tax
privileges concerning imported goods,42 may it be (a) PAL’s tax exemption
on excise tax costs which are merely passed on to it by the importer when it
buys imported goods from the latter (the second tax exemption under the
second kind of tax privilege); or (b) PAL’s tax exemption on its direct excise
tax liability when it imports the goods itself (the third kind of tax privilege).
Both textual and contextual analyses lead to this conclusion:

First, examining its phraseology, the word “domestic,” which means

“of or relating to one’s own country”43 or “an article of domestic
manufacture,”44 clearly pertains to goods manufactured or produced in the
Philippines for domestic sales or consumption or for any other disposition45
as opposed to things imported.46 In other words, by sheer divergence of
meaning, the term “domestic petroleum products” could not refer to goods
which are imported.

                                                            
40
See SEC. 129 in relation to SEC. 131 of the NIRC.
41
The first tax exemption under the second kind of tax privilege, relating to the first type of excisable
articles under SEC. 129 of the NIRC.
42
The second type of excisable articles under SEC. 129 of the NIRC.
43
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 9th Ed. (2009), p. 557.
44
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/domestic?show=0&t=1372905302> (visited January 25,
2013).
45
The first type of excisable articles under SEC. 129 of the NIRC.
46
The second type of excisable articles under SEC. 129 of the NIRC.

 
Decision 12 G.R. No. 198759
 

Second, examining its context, certain “whereas clauses”47 in LOI

1483 disclose that the said law was intended to lift the tax privilege
discussed in Department of Finance (DOF) Ruling dated November 17, 1969
(Subject DOF Ruling) which, based on a reading of the same, clarified that
PAL’s franchise included tax exemptions on aviation gas, fuel and oil which
are manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sales (and not
only to those imported).48 In other words, LOI 1483 was meant to divest
PAL from the tax privilege which was tackled in the Subject DOF Ruling,
namely, its tax exemption on aviation gas, fuel and oil which are
manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sales.
Consequently, if LOI 1483 was intended to withdraw the foregoing tax
exemption, then the term “purchase of domestic petroleum products for
use in its domestic operations” as used in LOI 1483 could only refer to
“goods manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sales or
consumption or for any other disposition,” and not to “things imported.” In
this respect, it cannot be gainsaid that PAL’s tax exemption privileges
concerning imported goods remain beyond the scope of LOI 1483 and thus,
continue to subsist.

In this case, records disclose that Caltex imported aviation fuel from
abroad and merely re-sold the same to PAL, tacking the amount of excise
taxes it paid or would be liable to pay to the government on to the purchase
price. Evidently, the said petroleum products are in the nature of “things
imported” and thus, beyond the coverage of LOI 1483 as previously
discussed. As such, considering the subsistence of PAL’s tax exemption
privileges over the imported goods subject of this case, PAL is allowed to
claim a tax refund on the excise taxes imposed and due thereon.

                                                            
47
WHEREAS, by virtue of a ruling of the Department of Finance, now Ministry, dated November
17, 1969, domestic petroleum products sold to PAL for use in its domestic operations are exempt from
the payment of specific and ad valorem taxes;
WHEREAS, this tax-exemption privilege enjoyed by PAL has resulted in serious tax base
erosions and distortions in the tax treatment of similarly situated enterprises; (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
xxxx
48
By way of background, the Subject DOF Ruling was issued in response to a letter seeking for the
DOF’s opinion regarding the scope of the “imposition of the specific tax on aviation gasoline and other
fuels purchased locally by airline companies direct from local sources of production for use in
domestic flight operations.” The conflict stemmed from the import of BIR Ruling No. 65-116, issued
on October 5, 1965, which “exempted from the specific tax aviation fuel and other fuel oils imported
by [PAL], and similar franchise grantees but not those locally purchased by them for use in domestic
flight operations.” Through the Subject DOF Ruling, the DOF eventually overturned BIR Ruling No.
65-116, clarifying that PAL’s franchise also conferred upon it tax exemption privileges concerning
aviation gas, fuel and oil which are manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sales and
not only to those imported. The DOF stated:
In view thereof, and considering that Ruling No. 65-116 of the [BIR] is not in harmony
with the established doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court on the matter, this
Department hereby modifies the same and rules that aviation gasoline and other fuel oils
directly purchased for domestic consumption by airline companies which are exempt
from the payment of specific tax pursuant to their franchise are also exempt from the
payment of specific tax on their domestic purchases of the same articles provided
such airline companies are already owners and possessors of such products prior to or at
the time of their removal from the place of production or bonded warehouses of the local
refineries. x x x (See Subject DOF Ruling, p. 3-4; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

 
Decision 13 G.R. No. 198759
 

C. PAL’s entitlement to refund.

It is hornbook principle that the Court is not a trier of facts and often,
remands cases to the lower courts for the determination of questions of such
character. However, when the trial court had already received all the
evidence of the parties, the Court may resolve the case on the merits instead
of remanding them in the interest of expediency and to better serve the ends
of justice.49

Applying these principles, the Court finds that the evidence on record
shows that PAL was able to sufficiently prove its entitlement to the subject
tax refund. The following incidents attest to the same:

First, PAL timely filed its claim for refund.

Section 22950 of the NIRC provides that the claim for refund should
be filed within two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax.

Shortly after imported aviation fuel was delivered to PAL, Caltex

electronically filed the requisite excise tax returns and paid the
corresponding amount of excise taxes, as follows:

DATE OF FILING AND FILING REFERENCE NO.

PAYMENT
July 26, 2004 074400000178825
July 27, 2004 070400000179115
July 28, 2004 070400000179294
July 29, 2004 070400000179586

PAL filed its administrative claim for refund on October 29, 200451
and its judicial claim with the CTA on July 25, 2006.52 In this regard, PAL’s
claims for refund were filed on time in accordance with the 2-year
prescriptive period.

                                                            
49
“x x x On many occasions, the Court, in the public interest and expeditious administration of
justice, has resolved action on the merits, instead of remanding them for further proceedings, as where
the ends of justice would not be subserved by the remand of the case or where the trial court had
already received all the evidence of the parties.” (Apo Fruits Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 164195,
February 6, 2007, 514 SCRA 537).
50
SEC. 229. Recovery of Tax Erroneously or Illegally Collected. –
xxxx
In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the expiration of two (2) years from the
date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment:
Provided, however, That the Commissioner may, even without a written claim therefor, refund or
credit any tax, where on the face of the return upon which payment was made, such payment appears
clearly to have been erroneously paid.
51
Rollo, p. 69.
52
Id. at 70.

 
Decision 14 G.R. No. 198759
 

Second, PAL paid the lower of the basic corporate income tax or the
franchise tax as provided for in the afore-quoted Section 13 of its franchise.

In its income tax return for FY 2004-2005,53 PAL reported no net

taxable income for the period resulting in zero basic corporate income tax,
which would necessarily be lower than any franchise tax due from PAL for
the same period.

Third, the subject excise taxes were duly declared and remitted to the
BIR.

Contrary to the findings of the CTA that the excise taxes sought to be
refunded were not the very same taxes that were declared in the Excise Tax
Returns filed by Caltex54 (underscoring the discrepancy of P23,855.00
between the amount of P2,975,892.90 declared in the said returns and the
amount of P2,952.037.9055 sought to be refunded), an examination of the
records shows a sufficient explanation for the difference.

In the Certification56 of Caltex on the volume of aviation fuel sold to

PAL and its Summary of Local Sales57 (see table below), Caltex sold
810,870 liters during the subject period out of which 804,370 liters were
sold to PAL, while the difference of 6,500 liters58 were sold to its other
client, LBOrendain.
DATE OF SALE
DOCUMENT July 24, July 25, July 26, July 27, July 28, TOTAL
2004 2004 2004 2004 2004
Certification 174,070 158,570 187,130 166,370 118,230 804,370
Summary of 177,070 158,570 187,130 166,370 121,730 810,870
Local Sales
DIFFERENCE 3,000 0 0 0 3,500 6,500

Per Summary of Removals and Excise Tax Due on Mineral Products

Chargeable Against Payments attached to the Excise Tax Returns,59 the
excise tax rate is P3.67 per liter, which, if multiplied with 6,500 liters sold
by Caltex to LBOrendain, would equal the discrepancy amount of
P23,855.00.

Further examination of the records also reveals that the amount

reflected in Caltex’s Certification is consistent with the amount indicated in
Caltex’s Aviation Receipts and Invoices60 and Aviation Billing Invoice.61
                                                            
53
Exhibits “VVV”- “BBBB,” CTA rollo, pp. 573-596.
54
Exhibits “PPP”- “SSS,” CTA rollo, pp. 339-357.
55
Rollo, p. 126.
56
Exhibit “GGG,” CTA rollo, p. 321.
57
Exhibit “DDD,” CTA rollo, pp. 314-315.
58
810,870 liters minus 804,370 liters.
59
CTA rollo, pp. 48-49, 53-54, 58-59, and 63-64.
60
Exhibits “G” to “BBB,” CTA rollo, pp. 264-311.
61
Exhibit “CCC,” CTA rollo, pp. 312-313.

 
Decision 15 G.R. No. 198759

Thus, finding that PAL has sufficiently proved its entitlement to a tax
refund of the excise taxes subject of this case, the Court hereby grants its
petition and consequently, annuls the assailed CTA resolutions.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The May 9,

2011 Decision and September 16, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Tax
Appeals En Bane in CTA EB Case No. 588 are ANNULLED and SET
ASIDE. Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby
ORDERED to refund or issue a tax credit certificate in favor of the
petitioner Philippine Airlines, Inc. in the amount of 1!2,952,037.90.

SO ORDERED.

ESTELA M. ~~RNABE
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

Associate Justice

Chairpe~C~.,)
CA(l{J{)~k
ARTURO D. BRION MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
Decision 16 G.R. No. 198759

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice