FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 177387. November 9, 2016.]

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner , vs. SECRETARY

OF JUSTICE, and PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING
CORPORATION, respondents.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J : p

Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) commenced this special civil

action for certiorari to annul the December 22, 2006 resolution 1 and the March 12, 2007
resolution, 2 both issued by the Secretary of Justice in OSJ Case No. 2004-1, alleging
that respondent Secretary of Justice acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction, or in
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. HTc ADC

The dispositive portion of the assailed December 22, 2006 resolution states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, PAGCOR is declared exempt from
payment [of] all taxes, save for the franchise tax as provided for under Section
13 of PD 1869, as amended, the presidential issuance not having been
expressly repealed by RA 7716. 3
while the March 12, 2007 resolution denied the CIR's motion for reconsideration of the
December 22, 2006 resolution.
Antecedents
Respondent Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) has
operated under a legislative franchise granted by Presidential Decree No. 1869 (P.D.
No. 1869), its Charter, 4 whose Section 13 (2) provides that:
(2) Income and other Taxes — (a) Franchise Holder:
No tax of any kind or form, income or otherwise, as well as fees,
charges or levies of whatever nature, whether National or Local, shall be
assessed and collected under this Franchise from the Corporation; nor
shall any form of tax or charge attach in any way to the earnings of the
Corporation, except a Franchise Tax of five percent (5%) of the gross
revenue or earnings derived by the Corporation from its operation under
this Franchise. Such tax shall be due and payable quarterly to the National
Government and shall be in lieu of all kinds of taxes, levies, fees or
assessments of any kind, nature or description, levied, established or collected
by any municipal, provincial or national government authority. (bold emphasis
supplied)
Notwithstanding the aforesaid 5% franchise tax imposed, the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR) issued several assessments against PAGCOR for alleged deficiency
value-added tax (VAT), final withholding tax on fringe benefits, and expanded
withholding tax, as follows:
TOTAL AMOUNT
PERIOD DUE
ASSESSMENT DATE ISSUED COVERED (inclusive of interest,
surcharge and
compromise penalty)
No. 33-
1996/1997/1998 (for November 14, 1996/1997/1998 P4,078,476,977.26
deficiency VAT) 5 2002

No. 33-99 (for

deficiency VAT, November 25, 1999 P6,678,346,966.49
final withholding tax 2002
on fringe benefits,
and expanded
withholding tax) 6

No. 33-2000 (for March 18, 2003 2000 P2,953,321,685.92

deficiency VAT and
final withholding tax
on fringe benefits) 7
TOTAL P13,710,145,629.67
On December 18, 2002, PAGCOR filed a letter-protest with the BIR against
Assessment Notice No. 33-1996/1997/1998 and Assessment Notice No. 33-99. 8
On March 31, 2003, PAGCOR filed a letter-protest against Assessment Notice
No. 33-2000, in which it reiterated the assertions made in its December 18, 2002 letter-
protest. 9
In reply to both letters-protest, the BIR requested PAGCOR to submit additional
documents to enable the conduct of the reinvestigation. 10
The CIR did not act on PAGCOR's letter-protest against Assessment Notice No.
33-1996/1997/1998 and Assessment Notice No. 33-99 within the 180-day period from
the latter's submission of additional documents. 11 Hence, PAGCOR filed an appeal with
the Secretary of Justice on January 5, 2004 relative to Assessment Notice No. 33-
1996/1997/1998 and Assessment Notice No. 33-99. 12
Meanwhile, in response to PAGCOR's letter-protest dated March 31, 2003, BIR
Regional Director Teodorica Arcega issued a letter dated December 15, 2003 reiterating
the assessment for deficiency VAT for taxable year 2000, 13 stating thusly: DETACa

In a memorandum to the Regional Director dated December 15, 2003 the

Chief Legal Division, this Region, confirmed the taxability of PAGCOR under
Section 108(A) of the 1997 Tax Code, as amended, effective Jan. 1, 1996 (VAT
Review Committee Ruling No. 041-2001).
In view of the confirmation of the Legal Division we hereby reiterate the
assessments forwarded to your office under Final Assessment No. 33-2000
dated March 18, 2003 amounting to P2,097,426,943.00.
However, the BIR only recomputed the deficiency final withholding tax on fringe
benefits and expanded withholding tax, and reduced the assessments to P12,212,199.85
and P6,959,525.10, respectively. 14
PAGCOR elevated its protest against Assessment Notice No. 33-2000 to the CIR,
but the 180-day period prescribed by law also lapsed without any action on the part of
the CIR. 15 Consequently, on August 4, 2004, PAGCOR brought another appeal to the
Secretary of Justice covering Assessment Notice No. 33-2000. 16
The Secretary of Justice consolidated PAGCOR's two appeals. HEITAD

After the parties traded pleadings, the Secretary of Justice summoned them to a
preliminary conference to discuss, inter alia, any possible settlement or compromise. 17
When no amicable settlement was reached, the consolidated appeals were considered
submitted for resolution. 18
On December 22, 2006, Secretary of Justice Raul M. Gonzales rendered the first
assailed resolution declaring PAGCOR exempt from the payment of all taxes except the
5% franchise tax provided in its Charter. 19
On March 12, 2007, Secretary Gonzales issued the second assailed resolution
denying the CIR's motion for reconsideration. 20
Hence, this special civil action for certiorari.
Issues
The grounds for the petition for certiorari are as follows:
I
RESPONDENT SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ACTED WITHOUT OR IN
EXCESS OF HIS JURISDICTION AND GRAVELY ABUSED HIS
DISCRETION IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION OVER THE PETITION ON
DISPUTED TAX ASSESSMENTS FILED BY RESPONDENT PAGCOR.
II
RESPONDENT SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ACTED WITHOUT OR IN
EXCESS OF HIS JURISDICTION AND GRAVELY ABUSED HIS
DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT R.A. NO. 7716 (VAT LAW) DID NOT
REPEAL P.D. NO. 1869 (CHARTER OF PAGCOR); HENCE, PAGCOR HAS
NOT BECOME LIABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE 10% VAT IN LIEU OF
THE 5% FRANCHISE TAX.
III
RESPONDENT SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ACTED WITHOUT OR IN
EXCESS OF HIS JURISDICTION AND GRAVELY ABUSED HIS
DISCRETION IN ABSOLVING PAGCOR OF ITS DUTY AND
RESPONSIBILITY AS WITHHOLDING AGENT TO WITHHOLD AND REMIT
FRINGE BENEFITS TAX, FINAL WITHHOLDING TAX AND EXPANDED
WITHHOLDING TAX. 21
Otherwise put, the issues to be resolved are: (1) whether or not the Secretary of
Justice has jurisdiction to review the disputed assessments; (2) whether or not
PAGCOR is liable for the payment of VAT; and (3) whether or not PAGCOR is liable for
the payment of withholding taxes.
Ruling
 The petition for certiorari is partly granted.
1.The Secretary of Justice has no jurisdiction to
review the disputed assessments
The petitioner contends that it is the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), not the
Secretary of Justice, that has the exclusive appellate jurisdiction in this case, pursuant
to Section 7 (1) of Republic Act No. 1125 (R.A. No. 1125), which grants the CTA the
exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review, among others, the decisions of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue "in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds
of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or
other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) or other law or
part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue."
PAGCOR counters, however, that it is the Secretary of Justice who should
adjudicate the dispute by virtue of Chapter 14 of the Revised Administrative Code of
1987, which provides: ATICc S

CHAPTER 14. CONTROVERSIES AMONG GOVERNMENT

OFFICES AND CORPORATIONS.
SEC. 66. How settled. — All disputes/claims and controversies,
solely between or among the departments, bureaus, offices, agencies and
instrumentalities of the National Government, including government-owned and
controlled corporations, such as those arising from the interpretation and
application of statutes, contracts or agreements shall be administratively settled
or adjudicated in the manner provided for in this Chapter. This Chapter shall,
however, not apply to disputes involving the Congress, the Supreme Court, the
Constitutional Commission and local governments.
SEC. 67. Disputes Involving Questions of Law. — All cases
involving only questions of law shall be submitted to and settled or adjudicated
by the Secretary of Justice as Attorney-General of the National Government and
as ex-officio legal adviser of all government-owned or controlled corporations.
His ruling or decision thereon shall be conclusive and binding on all the parties
concerned.
SEC. 68. Disputes Involving Questions of Fact and Law. — Cases
involving mixed questions of law and of fact or only factual issues shall be
submitted to and settled or adjudicated by:
(1) The Solicitor General, if the dispute, claim or controversy involves
only departments, bureaus, offices and other agencies of the National
Government as well as government-owned or controlled corporations or entities
of whom he is the principal law officer or general counsel; and
(2) The Secretary of Justice, in all other cases not falling under
paragraph (1).
Although acknowledging the validity of the petitioner's contention, the Secretary of
Justice still resolved the disputed assessments on the basis that the prevailing doctrine
at the time of the filing of the petitions in the Department of Justice (DOJ) on January 5,
2004 was that enunciated in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,
22 whereby the Court ruled that: TIADCc

x x x (T)here is an "irreconcilable repugnancy x x between Section 7(2) of

 R.A. No. 1125 and P.D. No. 242," and hence, that the latter enactment (P.D. No.
242), being the latest expression of the legislative will, should prevail over the
earlier.
Later on, the Court reversed itself in Philippine National Oil Company v. Court of
Appeals, 23 and held as follows:
Following the rule on statutory construction involving a general and a
special law previously discussed, then P.D. No. 242 should not affect R.A. No.
1125. R.A. No. 1125, specifically Section 7 thereof on the jurisdiction of the
CTA, constitutes an exception to P.D. No. 242. Disputes, claims and
controversies, falling under Section 7 of R.A. No. 1125, even though solely
among government offices, agencies, and instrumentalities, including
government-owned and controlled corporations, remain in the exclusive
appellate jurisdiction of the CTA. Such a construction resolves the alleged
inconsistency or conflict between the two statutes, x x x.
Despite the shift in the construction of P.D. No. 242 in relation to R.A. No. 1125,
the Secretary of Justice still resolved PAGCOR's petitions on the merits, stating that:
While this ruling (DBP) has been superseded by the ruling in Philippine
National Oil Company vs. CA, in view of the prospective application of the
PNOC ruling, we (the DOJ) are of the view that this Office can continue to
assume jurisdiction over this case which was filed and has been pending with
this Office since January 5, 2004 and rule on the merits of the case. 24
We disagree with the action of the Secretary of Justice.
PAGCOR filed its appeals in the DOJ on January 5, 2004 and August 4, 2004. 25
Philippine National Oil Company v. Court of Appeals was promulgated on April 26,
2006. The Secretary of Justice resolved the petitions on December 22, 2006. Under the
circumstances, the Secretary of Justice had ample opportunity to abide by the
prevailing rule and should have referred the case to the CTA because judicial decisions
applying or interpreting the law formed part of the legal system of the country, 26 and
are for that reason to be held in obedience by all, including the Secretary of Justice and
his Department. Upon becoming aware of the new proper construction of P.D. No. 242
in relation to R.A. No. 1125 pronounced in Philippine National Oil Company v. Court of
Appeals, therefore, the Secretary of Justice should have desisted from dealing with the
petitions, and referred them to the CTA, instead of insisting on exercising jurisdiction
thereon. Therein lay the grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of the Secretary of Justice, for he thereby acted arbitrarily and
capriciously in ignoring the pronouncement in Philippine National Oil Company v. Court
of Appeals. Indeed, the doctrine of stare decisis required him to adhere to the ruling of
the Court, which by tradition and conformably with our system of judicial administration
speaks the last word on what the law is, and stands as the final arbiter of any justiciable
controversy. In other words, there is only one Supreme Court from whose decisions all
other courts and everyone else should take their bearings. 27 AIDSTE

Nonetheless, the Secretary of Justice should not be taken to task for initially
entertaining the petitions considering that the prevailing interpretation of the law on
jurisdiction at the time of their filing was that he had jurisdiction. Neither should
PAGCOR to blame in bringing its appeal to the DOJ on January 5, 2004 and August 4,
2004 because the prevailing rule then was the interpretation in Development Bank of
the Philippines v. Court of Appeals. The emergence of the later ruling was beyond
PAGCOR's control. Accordingly, the lapse of the period within which to appeal the
disputed assessments to the CTA could not be taken against PAGCOR. While a judicial
interpretation becomes a part of the law as of the date that the law was originally
passed, the reversal of the interpretation cannot be given retroactive effect to the
prejudice of parties who may have relied on the first interpretation. 28
The Court now undertakes to settle the controversy because of the urgent need to
promptly decide it. We cannot lose sight of the fact that PAGCOR is among the most
prolific income-generating institutions that contribute immensely to the country's
developing economy. Any controversy involving PAGCOR should be resolved
expeditiously considering the underlying public interest in the matter at hand. To dismiss
the petitions in order to have PAGCOR bring a similar petition in the CTA would not
serve the interest of justice. 29 On previous occasions, the Court has overruled the
defense of jurisdiction in the interest of public welfare and for the advancement of public
policy whenever, as in this case, an extraordinary situation existed. 30
2.
PAGCOR is exempt from payment of VAT
The CIR insists that under VAT Ruling No. 04-96 (dated May 14, 1996), VAT
Ruling No. 030-99 (dated March 18, 1999), and VAT Ruling No. 067-01 (dated October
8, 2001), R.A. No. 7716 31 has expressly repealed, amended, or withdrawn the 5%
franchise tax provision in PAGCOR's Charter; hence, PAGCOR was liable for the 10%
VAT. 32
The relevant provisions of R.A. No. 7716 on which the insistence has been
anchored are the following:
SEC. 3. Section 102 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as
amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 102. Value-added tax on sale of services and use or
lease of properties. — (a) Rate and base of tax. — There shall be
levied, assessed and collected, a value-added tax equivalent to
10% of gross receipts derived from the sale or exchange of
services, including the use or lease of properties.
"The phrase 'sale or exchange of services' means the
performance of all kinds of service in the Philippines for others for
a fee, remuneration or consideration, including x x x service of
franchise grantees of telephone and telegraph, radio and
television broadcasting and all other franchise grantees except
those under Section 117 of this Code; x x x" AaCTc I

SEC. 12. Section 117 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as

amended, is hereby further amended further to read as follows:
"SEC. 117. Tax on Franchises. — Any provision of general or
special law to the contrary notwithstanding, there shall be levied,
assessed and collected in respect to all franchises on electric, gas
and water utilities a tax of two percent (2%) on the gross receipts
derived from the business covered by the law granting the
franchise. x x x"
 SEC. 20. Repealing Clauses. — The provisions of any special law
relative to the rate of franchise taxes are hereby expressly repealed. x x x
The CIR argues that PAGCOR's gambling operations are embraced under the
phrase sale or exchange of services, including the use or lease of properties; that
such operations are not among those expressly exempted from the 10% VAT under
Section 3 of R.A. No. 7716; and that the legislative purpose to withdraw PAGCOR's 5%
franchise tax was manifested by the language used in Section 20 of R.A. No. 7716. ac EHCD

The CIR's arguments lack merit.

Firstly, a basic rule in statutory construction is that a special law cannot be
repealed or modified by a subsequently enacted general law in the absence of any
express provision in the latter law to that effect. A special law must be interpreted to
constitute an exception to the general law in the absence of special circumstances
warranting a contrary conclusion. 33 R.A. No. 7716, a general law, did not provide for
the express repeal of PAGCOR's Charter, which is a special law; hence, the general
repealing clause under Section 20 of R.A. No. 7716 must pertain only to franchises of
electric, gas, and water utilities, while the term other franchises in Section 102 of the
NIRC should refer only to transport, communications and utilities, exclusive of
PAGCOR's casino operations.
Secondly, R.A. No. 7716 indicates that Congress has not intended to repeal
PAGCOR's privilege to enjoy the 5% franchise tax in lieu of all other taxes. A contrary
construction would be unwarranted and myopic nitpicking. In this regard, we should
follow the following apt reminder uttered in Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue: 34
A law must not be read in truncated parts; its provisions must be read in
relation to the whole law. It is the cardinal rule in statutory construction that a
statute's clauses and phrases must not be taken as detached and isolated
expressions, but the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fixing
the meaning of any of its parts in order to produce a harmonious whole. Every
part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that
every part of` the statute must be considered together with other parts of the
statute and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.
In construing a statute, courts have to take the thought conveyed by the
statute as a whole; construe the constituent parts together; ascertain the
legislative intent from the whole act; consider each and every provision thereof
in the light of the general purpose of the statute; and endeavor to make every
part effective, harmonious and sensible.
Although Section 3 of R.A. No. 7716 imposes 10% VAT on the sale or exchange
of services, including the use or lease of properties, the provision also considers
transactions that are subject to 0% VAT. 35 On the other hand, Section 4 of R.A. No.
7716 enumerates the transactions exempt from VAT, viz.:
SEC. 4. Section 103 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as
amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 103. Exempt transactions. — The following shall be
exempt from the value-added tax:
xxx xxx xxx
 "(q) Transactions which are exempt under special laws,
except those granted under Presidential Decree Nos. 66, 529,
972, 1491, and 1590, and nonelectric cooperatives under republic
Act No. 6938, or international agreements to which the Philippines
is a signatory;
xxx xxx xxx" (bold emphasis supplied.)
Anent the effect of R.A. No. 7716 on franchises, the Court has observed in
Tolentino v. The Secretary of Finance 36 that:
Among the provisions of the NIRC amended is §103, which originally
read: SDHTEC

§103. Exempt transactions. — The following shall be

exempt from the value-added tax:
xxx xxx xxx
(q) Transactions which are exempt under special laws
or international agreements to which the Philippines is a
signatory.
Among the transactions exempted from the VAT were those of PAL because it
was exempted under its franchise (P.D. No. 1590) from the payment of all "other
taxes . . . now or in the near future," in consideration of the payment by it either
of the corporate income tax or a franchise tax of 2%.
As a result of its amendment by Republic Act No. 7716, §103 of the NIRC
now provides:
§103. Exempt transactions. — The following shall be
exempt from the value-added tax:
xxx xxx xxx
(q) Transactions which are exempt under special laws,
except those granted under Presidential Decree Nos. 66, 529,
972, 1491, 1590 …..
The effect of the amendment is to remove the exemption granted to PAL,
as far as the VAT is concerned. HSAc aE

xxx xxx xxx

x x x Republic Act No. 7716 expressly amends PAL's franchise (P.D. No.
1590) by specifically excepting from the grant of exemptions from the VAT
PAL's exemption under P.D. No. 1590. This is within the power of Congress to
do under Art. XII, § 11 of the Constitution, which provides that the grant of a
franchise for the operation of a public utility is subject to amendment, alteration
or repeal by Congress when the common good so requires. 37 ASc HCD

Unlike the case of PAL, however, R.A. No. 7716 does not specifically exclude
PAGCOR's exemption under P.D. No. 1869 from the grant of exemptions from VAT;
hence, the petitioner's contention that R.A. No. 7716 expressly amended PAGCOR's
franchise has no leg to stand on.
Moreover, PAGCOR's exemption from VAT, whether under R.A. No. 7716 or its
amendments, has been settled in Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation
(PAGCOR) v. The Bureau of Internal Revenue, 38 whereby the Court, citing
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acesite (Philippines) Hotel Corporation, 39 has
declared:
Petitioner is exempt from the payment of VAT, because PAGCORs
charter, P.D. No. 1869, is a special law that grants petitioner exemption
from taxes.
Moreover, the exemption of PAGCOR from VAT is supported by Section
6 of R.A. No. 9337, which retained Section 108 (B) (3) of R.A. No. 8424, thus:
[R.A. No. 9337], SEC. 6. Section 108 of the same Code
(R.A. No. 8424), as amended, is hereby further amended to read
as follows:
SEC. 108. Value-Added Tax on Sale of Services and
Use or Lease of Properties.
(A) Rate and Base of Tax. There shall be levied,
assessed and collected, a value-added tax equivalent to ten
percent (10%) of gross receipts derived from the sale or exchange
of services, including the use or lease of properties: x x x
xxx xxx xxx
(B) Transactions Subject to Zero Percent (0%)
Rate. The following services performed in the Philippines by VAT-
registered persons shall be subject to zero percent (0%) rate:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Services rendered to persons or entities whose
exemption under special laws or international agreements to
which the Philippines is a signatory effectively subjects the
supply of such services to zero percent (0%) rate;
xxx xxx xxx
As pointed out by petitioner, although R.A. No. 9337
introduced amendments to Section 108 of R.A. No. 8424 by
imposing VAT on other services not previously covered, it did not
amend the portion of Section 108 (B) (3) that subjects to zero
percent rate services performed by VAT-registered persons to
persons or entities whose exemption under special laws or
international agreements to which the Philippines is a signatory
effectively subjects the supply of such services to 0% rate.
Petitioner's exemption from VAT under Section 108 (B) (3) of R.A. No.
8424 has been thoroughly and extensively discussed in Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. Acesite (Philippines) Hotel Corporation. x x x The Court
ruled that PAGCOR and Acesite were both exempt from paying VAT, thus:
xxx xxx xxx
PAGCOR is exempt from payment of indirect taxes
It is undisputed that P.D. 1869, the charter creating
PAGCOR, grants the latter an exemption from the payment of
taxes. Section 13 of P.D. 1869 pertinently provides:
Sec. 13. Exemptions.
 xxx xxx xxx
(2) Income and other taxes. — (a) Franchise Holder:
No tax of any kind or form, income or otherwise, as well as
fees, charges or levies of whatever nature, whether
National or Local, shall be assessed and collected under
this Franchise from the Corporation; nor shall any form of
tax or charge attach in any way to the earnings of the
Corporation, except a Franchise Tax of five (5%) percent of
the gross revenue or earnings derived by the Corporation
from its operation under this Franchise. Such tax shall be
due and payable quarterly to the National Government and
shall be in lieu of all kinds of taxes, levies, fees or
assessments of any kind, nature or description, levied,
established or collected by any municipal, provincial, or
national government authority. Ac ICHD

(b) Others: The exemptions herein granted for earnings

derived from the operations conducted under the franchise
specifically from the payment of any tax, income or
otherwise, as well as any form of charges, fees or levies,
shall inure to the benefit of and extend to corporation(s),
association(s), agency(ies), or individual(s) with whom the
Corporation or operator has any contractual relationship in
connection with the operations of the casino(s) authorized
to be conducted under this Franchise and to those
receiving compensation or other remuneration from the
Corporation or operator as a result of essential facilities
furnished and/or technical services rendered to the
Corporation or operator.
Petitioner contends that the above tax exemption refers
only to PAGCOR's direct tax liability and not to indirect taxes, like
the VAT.
We disagree.
A close scrutiny of the above provisos clearly gives
PAGCOR a blanket exemption to taxes with no distinction on
whether the taxes are direct or indirect. We are one with the CA
ruling that PAGCOR is also exempt from indirect taxes, like VAT,
as follows:
Under the above provision [Section 13 (2) (b) of P.D.
1869], the term "Corporation" or operator refers to
PAGCOR. Although the law does not specifically mention
PAGCOR's exemption from indirect taxes, PAGCOR is
undoubtedly exempt from such taxes because the law
exempts from taxes persons or entities contracting
with PAGCOR in casino operations. Although, differently
worded, the provision clearly exempts PAGCOR from
indirect taxes. In fact, it goes one step further by
granting tax exempt status to persons dealing with
PAGCOR in casino operations. The unmistakable
 conclusion is that PAGCOR is not liable for the
P30,152,892.02 VAT and neither is Acesite as the latter is
effectively subject to zero percent rate under Sec. 108 B (3),
R.A. 8424. (Emphasis supplied.) TAIaHE

Indeed, by extending the exemption to entities or

individuals dealing with PAGCOR, the legislature clearly granted
exemption also from indirect taxes. It must be noted that the
indirect tax of VAT, as in the instant case, can be shifted or passed
to the buyer, transferee, or lessee of the goods, properties, or
services subject to VAT. Thus, by extending the tax exemption
to entities or individuals dealing with PAGCOR in casino
operations, it is exempting PAGCOR from being liable to
indirect taxes.
The manner of charging VAT does not make PAGCOR
liable to said tax.
It is true that VAT can either be incorporated in the value of
the goods, properties, or services sold or leased, in which case it
is computed as 1/11 of such value, or charged as an additional
10% to the value. Verily, the seller or lessor has the option to
follow either way in charging its clients and customer. In the
instant case, Acesite followed the latter method, that is, charging
an additional 10% of the gross sales and rentals. Be that as it may,
the use of either method, and in particular, the first method, does
not denigrate the fact that PAGCOR is exempt from an indirect tax,
like VAT.
VAT exemption extends to Acesite
Thus, while it was proper for PAGCOR not to pay the 10%
VAT charged by Acesite, the latter is not liable for the payment of it
as it is exempt in this particular transaction by operation of law to
pay the indirect tax. Such exemption falls within the former Section
102 (b) (3) of the 1977 Tax Code, as amended (now Sec. 108 [b]
[3] of R.A. 8424), which provides:
Section 102. Value-added tax on sale of
services. — (a) Rate and base of tax — There shall be
levied, assessed and collected, a value-added tax
equivalent to 10% of gross receipts derived by any person
engaged in the sale of services x x x; Provided, that the
following services performed in the Philippines by VAT
registered persons shall be subject to 0%.
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Services rendered to persons or entities
whose exemption under special laws or international
agreements to which the Philippines is a signatory
effectively subjects the supply of such services to zero (0%)
rate (emphasis supplied). c DHAES

The rationale for the exemption from indirect taxes provided

for in P.D. 1869 and the extension of such exemption to entities or
 individuals dealing with PAGCOR in casino operations are best
elucidated from the 1987 case of Commissioner of Internal
Revenue v. John Gotamco & Sons, Inc., where the absolute tax
exemption of the World Health Organization (WHO) upon an
international agreement was upheld. We held in said case that the
exemption of contractee WHO should be implemented to mean
that the entity or person exempt is the contractor itself who
constructed the building owned by contractee WHO, and such
does not violate the rule that tax exemptions are personal because
the manifest intention of the agreement is to exempt the contractor
so that no contractor's tax may be shifted to the contractee WHO.
Thus, the proviso in P.D. 1869, extending the exemption to
entities or individuals dealing with PAGCOR in casino
operations, is clearly to proscribe any indirect tax, like VAT,
that may be shifted to PAGCOR.
Although the basis of the exemption of PAGCOR and Acesite from VAT
in the case of The Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acesite (Philippines)
Hotel Corporation was Section 102 (b) of the 1977 Tax Code, as amended,
which section was retained as Section 108 (B) (3) in R.A. No. 8424, it is still
applicable to this case, since the provision relied upon has been retained in
R.A. No. 9337. 40
Clearly, the assessments for deficiency VAT issued against PAGCOR should be
cancelled for lack of legal basis.
The Court also deems it warranted to cancel the assessments for deficiency
withholding VAT pertaining to the payments made by PAGCOR to its catering service
contractor.
In two separate letters dated December 12, 2003 41 and December 15, 2003, 42
the BIR conceded that the unmonetized meal allowances of PAGCOR's employees were
not subject to fringe benefits tax (FBT). However, the BIR held PAGCOR liable for
expanded withholding VAT for the payments made to its catering service contractor who
provided the meals for its employees. Accordingly, the BIR assessed PAGCOR with
deficiency withholding VAT for taxable year 1999 in the amount of P4,077,667.40,
inclusive of interest and compromise penalty; and for taxable year 2000 in the amount of
P12,212,199.85, exclusive of interest and penalties.
The payments made by PAGCOR to its catering service contractor are subject to
zero-rated (0%) VAT in accordance with Section 13 (2) of P.D. No. 1869 in relation to
Section 3 of R.A. No. 7716, viz.:ASEc HI

SEC. 13. Exemptions. —

(1) xxx
(2) (a) x x x
(b) Others: The exemption herein granted for earnings derived
from the operations conducted under the franchise, specifically
from the payment of any tax, income or otherwise, as well as any
form of charges, fees, or levies, shall inure to the benefit and
extend to corporation(s), association(s), agency(ies), or
individual(s) with whom the Corporation or operator has any
 contractual relationship in connection with the operations of
casino(s) authorized to be conducted under this Franchise and to
those receiving compensation or other remuneration from the
Corporation or operator as a result of essential facilities furnished
and/or technical services rendered to the Corporation or operator.
xxx xxx xxx
SEC. 3. Section 102 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended,
is hereby further amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 102. Value-added tax on sale of service and use or
lease of properties. — x x x
"(b) Transaction subject to zero-rate. — The following
services performed in the Philippines by VAT-registered persons
shall be subject to 0%:
"xxx xxx xxx
"(3) Services rendered to persons or entities whose
exemptions under special laws or international agreements to
which the Philippines is a signatory effectively subjects the supply
of such services to zero rate.
As such, the catering service contractor, who is presumably a VAT-
registered person, shall impose a zero rate (0%) output tax on its sale or lease
of goods, services or properties to PAGCOR. Consequently, no withholding tax
is due on such transaction.
3.PAGCOR is liable for the payment of withholding taxes
Through the letters dated December 12, 2003 43 and December 15,
2003, 44 the BIR recomputed the assessments for deficiency final withholding
taxes on fringe benefits under Assessment No. 33-99 and Assessment No. 33-
2000, respectively, as follows:
Period Recomputed Amount
Covered

Assessment No. 33-99

Final Withholding Tax on Fringe Benefits 1999 P13,337,414.58,
inclusive of penalty
and interest
Assessment No. 33-2000
Final Withholding Tax on Fringe Benefits 2000 P12,212,199.85,
exclusive of penalty
and interest
The amount of the assessment for deficiency expanded withholding tax under
Assessment No. 33-99 remained at P3,790,916,809.16.
We now resolve the validity of the foregoing assessments.
a. Final Withholding Tax on
Fringe Benefits c SaATC

The recomputed assessment for deficiency final withholding taxes related to the
car plan granted to PAGCOR's employees and for its payment of membership dues and
fees.
Under Section 33 of the NIRC, FBT is imposed as:
A final tax of thirty-four percent (34%) effective January 1, 1998; thirty-
three percent (33%) effective January 1, 1999; and thirty-two percent (32%)
effective January 1, 2000 and thereafter, is hereby imposed on the grossed-up
monetary value of fringe benefit furnished or granted to the employee (except
rank and file employees as defined herein) by the employer, whether an
individual or a corporation (unless the fringe benefit is required by the nature of,
or necessary to the trade, business or profession of the employer, or when the
fringe benefit is for the convenience or advantage of the employer). The tax
herein imposed is payable by the employer which tax shall be paid in the same
manner as provided for under Section 57 (A) of this Code.
FBT is treated as a final income tax on the employee that shall be withheld and
paid by the employer on a calendar quarterly basis. 45 As such, PAGCOR is a mere
withholding agent inasmuch as the FBT is imposed on PAGCOR's employees who
receive the fringe benefit. PAGCOR's liability as a withholding agent is not covered by
the tax exemptions under its Charter.
The car plan extended by PAGCOR to its qualified officers is evidently
considered a fringe benefit 46 as defined under Section 33 of the NIRC. To avoid the
imposition of the FBT on the benefit received by the employee, and, consequently, to
avoid the withholding of the payment thereof by the employer, PAGCOR must
sufficiently establish that the fringe benefit is required by the nature of, or is necessary
to the trade, business or profession of the employer, or when the fringe benefit is for the
convenience or advantage of the employer.
PAGCOR asserted that the car plan was granted "not only because it was
necessary to the nature of the trade of PAGCOR but it was also granted for its
convenience." 47 The records are lacking in proof as to whether such benefit granted to
PAGCOR's officers were, in fact, necessary for PAGCOR's business or for its
convenience and advantage. Accordingly, PAGCOR should have withheld the FBT from
the officers who have availed themselves of the benefits of the car plan and remitted the
same to the BIR.
As for the payment of the membership dues and fees, the Court finds that this is
not considered a fringe benefit that is subject to FBT and which holds PAGCOR liable
for final withholding tax. According to PAGCOR, the membership dues and fees are: c HDAIS

57. x x x expenses borne by [respondent] to cover various

memberships in social, athletic clubs and similar organizations. x x x
58. Respondent's nature of business is casino operations and it
derives business from its customers who play at the casinos. In furtherance of its
business, PAGCOR usually attends its VIP customers, amenities such as
playing rights to golf clubs. The membership of PAGCOR to these golf clubs
and other organizations are intended to benefit respondent's customers and not
its employees. Aside from this, the membership is under the name of PAGCOR,
and as such, cannot be considered as fringe benefits because it is the
customers and not the employees of PAGCOR who benefit from such
memberships. 48
Considering that the payments of membership dues and fees are not borne by
PAGCOR for its employees, they cannot be considered as fringe benefits which are
subject to FBT under Section 33 of the NIRC. Hence, PAGCOR is not liable to withhold
FBT from its employees.
b. Expanded Withholding Tax
The BIR assessed PAGCOR with deficiency expanded withholding tax
for the year 1999 under Assessment No. 33-99 amounting to
P3,790,916,809.16, inclusive of surcharge and interest, which was computed as
follows: 49
Taxable Basis per Investigation P2,441,948,878.00
–––––––––––––––––
Expanded Withholding Tax due per investigation 45,762,839.60
Less: Tax paid 43,490,484.05
–––––––––––––––––
Deficiency Expanded Withholding Tax Due P2,398,458,393.95
Add: 25% surcharge
20% interest per annum from ____ 12-20-02 1,392,433,415.21
Compromise Penalty
–––––––––––––––––
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE & COLLECTIBLE P3,790,891,809.16
===============
Later, BIR issued a letter dated December 12, 2003 showing therein a
recomputation of the assessment, to wit: 50
Taxable Basis per Investigation P2,441,948,878.00
===============
EWT due per investigation 45,762,839.60
Less: Tax paid 43,490,484.05
––––––––––––––––
Def. EWT P2,272,355.55
Add: Interest 1-26-00 to 12-26-03 P1,780,311.85
Compromise 25,000.00 1,805,311.85
––––––––––––––––
Def. EWT P4,077,667.40
PAGCOR submits that the BIR erroneously assessed it for the deficiency
expanded withholding taxes, explaining thusly:
44. The computation made by the revenue officers for the year 1999
for expanded withholding taxes against respondent are also not correct
because it included payments amounting to P682,120,262 which should not be
subjected to withholding tax;ISHCc T

45. Of the said amount, P194,999,366 cover importations of various

items for the sole and exclusive use of the casinos x x x:
xxx xxx xxx
46. The breakdown of respondent's payments which
were assessed expanded withholding tax by the BIR but which
should not have been made subject thereto are as follows:
 a) Taxable Compensation Income amounting to
P71,611,563.60, representing salaries of contractuals and
casuals, clerical and messengerial and other services, cost of
COA services and unclaimed salaries and other benefits
recognized as income but subsequently claimed (attached as
Annexes "10" to "18" and made integral parts hereof);
b) Prizes and other promo items amounting to
P16,185,936.61 which were already subjected to 20% final
withholding tax. Pursuant to Revenue Regulations 2-98, prizes
and promo items shall be subject only to 20% final tax (attached
as Annexes "19" to "51" and made integral parts hereof);
c) Reimbursements amounting to P18,246,090.35
which were paid directly by agents/employees as over the counter
purchases subsequently liquidated/reimbursed by PAGCOR
pursuant to BIR rulings 129-92 and 345-88;
d) Taxes amounting to P6,679,807.53, the amount of
which should not be subjected to expanded withholding tax for
obvious reasons;
e) Security Deposit amounting to P3,450,000.00 which
was written off after the Regional Trial Court, Branch 226 of
Quezon City through Presiding Judge, Leah S. Domingo-Regala,
rendered a decision based on a compromise agreement in Civil
Case No. 097-31299 entitled "Felina Rodriguez-Luna, et al. vs.
Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation" (attached as
Annex "52" and made an integral part hereof); 51 CAac TH

PAGCOR's submission is partly meritorious. The Court finds that PAGCOR is not
liable for deficiency expanded withholding tax on its payment for: (1) audit services
rendered by the Commission on Audit (COA), amounting to P4,243,977.96, 52 and (2)
prizes and other promo items amounting to P16,185,936.61. 53
PAGCOR's payment to the COA for its audit services is exempted from
withholding tax pursuant to Sec. 2.57.5 (A) of Revenue Regulations (RR) 2-98, which
states:
SEC. 2.57.5. Exemption from Withholding Tax — The withholding
of creditable withholding tax prescribed in these Regulations shall not apply to
income payments made to the following:
(A) National government and its instrumentalities, including
provincial, city or municipal governments;
On the other hand, the prizes and other promo items amounting to
P16,185,936.61 were already subjected to the 20% final withholding tax 54 pursuant to
Section 24 (B) (1) of the NIRC. 55 To impose another tax on these items would amount
to obnoxious or prohibited double taxation because the taxpayer would be taxed twice
by the same jurisdiction for the same purpose. 56
Hence, except for the foregoing, the Court upholds the validity of the assessment
against PAGCOR for deficiency expanded withholding tax.
We explain.
 Other than the P4,243,977.96 payments made to COA, the remainder of the
P71,611,563.60 compensation income that PAGCOR paid for the services of its
contractual, casual, clerical and messengerial employees are clearly subject to
expanded withholding tax by virtue of Section 79 (A) of the NIRC which reads:
Sec. 79 Income Tax Collected at Source. —
(A) Requirement of Withholding. — Every employer making payment
of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in
accordance with the rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of
Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner: Provided, however, That
no withholding of a tax shall be required where the total compensation income
of an individual does not exceed the statutory minimum wage, or Five thousand
pesos (P5,000) per month, whichever is higher.
In addition, Section 2.57.3 (C) of RR 2-98 states that:
SEC. 2.57.3 Persons Required to Deduct and Withhold. — The following
persons are hereby constituted as withholding agents for purposes of the
creditable tax required to be withheld on income payments enumerated in
Section 2.57.2:IAETDc

xxx xxx xxx

(c) All government offices including government-owned or controlled
corporations, as well as provincial, city and municipal governments.
As for the rest of the assessment for deficiency expanded withholding tax arising
from PAGCOR's (1) reimbursement for over-the-counter purchases by its agents
amounting to P18,246,090.34; (2) tax payments of P6,679,807.53; (3) security deposit
totalling P3,450,000.00; and (4) importations worth P194,999,366.00, the Court observes
that PAGCOR did not present sufficient and convincing proof to establish its non-
liability.
With regard to the reimbursement for over-the-counter purchases by its agents,
PAGCOR merely relied on BIR Ruling Nos. 129-92 and 345-88 to support its claim that
it should not be liable to withhold taxes on these payments without submitting any proof
to show that there were really actual payments made. 57 There is also nothing in the
records to show that the amount of P6,679,807.53 really represented PAGCOR's tax
payments, 58 or that the amount of P194,999,366.00 were, in fact, paid for PAGCOR's
importations of various items in furtherance of its business.
Even the P3,450,000.00 security deposit that it claims to have been written-off
based on the compromise agreement in Civil Case No. 097-31299 was not sufficiently
proved to be tax exempt. The only document presented by PAGCOR to support its
contention was a copy of the trial court's decision in the civil case. However, nowhere in
the decision mentioned the security deposit.
It is settled that all presumptions are in favor of the correctness of tax
assessments. The good faith of the tax assessors and the validity of their actions are
thus presumed. They will be presumed to have taken into consideration all the facts to
which their attention was called. 59 Hence, it is incumbent upon the taxpayer to credibly
show that the assessment was erroneous in order to relieve himself from the liability it
imposes. PAGCOR failed in this regard. Hence, except for the assessment for
deficiency expanded withholding taxes pertaining to the payments made to the COA for
its audit services and for the prizes and other promo items, the Court upholds the BIR's
its audit services and for the prizes and other promo items, the Court upholds the BIR's
assessment for deficiency expanded withholding taxes.
WHEREFORE, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the petition for certiorari ;
ANNULS and SETS ASIDE the Resolutions dated December 22, 2006 and March 12,
2007 of the Secretary of Justice in OSJ Case No. 2004-1 FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION; DECLARES that Republic Act No. 7716 did not repeal Section 13 (2) of
Presidential Decree 1869, and, ACCORDINGLY, the PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND
GAMING CORPORATION is EXEMPT from value-added tax. Dc HSEa

The Court FURTHER RESOLVES to:

(1) CANCEL Assessment No. 33-1996/1997/1998 dated November 14, 2002,
which assessed PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION for
deficiency value-added tax;
(2) CANCEL Assessment No. 33-99 dated November 25, 2002, insofar as it
assessed PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION for deficiency —
(a) value-added tax;
(b) expanded withholding value-added tax on payments made by PHILIPPINE
AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION to its catering service
contractor;
(c) final withholding tax on fringe benefits relating to the membership fees and
dues paid by PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION
for the benefit of its clients and customers; and
(d) expanded withholding tax on compensation income paid by PHILIPPINE
AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION to the Commission on Audit
for its audit services, and expanded withholding tax on the prizes and other
promo items, which were already subjected to the 20% final withholding
tax;
(3) CANCEL Assessment No. 33-2000 dated March 18, 2003, insofar as it
assessed PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION for deficiency —
(a) value-added tax;
(b) expanded withholding value-added tax on payments made by PHILIPPINE
AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION to its catering service
contractor; and
(c) final withholding tax on fringe benefits relating to the membership fees and
dues paid by PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION
for the benefit of its clients and customers;
Respondent PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION is
DIRECTED TO PAY to the Bureau of Internal Revenue:
(1) its deficiency final withholding tax on fringe benefits arising from the car
plan it granted to its qualified officers and employees under Assessment No. 33-99 and
Assessment No. 33-2000; and SCaITA

(2) its deficiency expanded withholding tax under Assessment No. 33-99,
except on compensation income paid to the Commission on Audit for its audit services
and on prizes and other promo items.
Upon receipt of respondent PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING
CORPORATION's payment for the foregoing tax deficiencies, the Bureau of Internal
Revenue is DIRECTED TO WITHHOLD 5% thereof and TO REMIT the same to the
Office of the Solicitor General pursuant to Section 11 (1) 60 of Republic Act No. 9417
(An Act to Strengthen the Office of the Solicitor General, by Expanding and
Streamlining its Bureaucracy, Upgrading Employee Skills and Augmenting Benefits,
and Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes).
No pronouncement on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Perlas-Bernabe and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 40-53.

2. Id. at 54-59.

3. Id. at 53.

4. Consolidating and Amending Presidential Decree Nos. 1067-A, 1067-B n , 1067-C, 1399
and 1632, Relative to the Franchise and Powers of the Philippine Amusement and
Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR).

5. Rollo, pp. 60-67, 70 (the BIR required PAGCOR to pay the assessed amount not later than
December 27, 2002).

6. Id. at 68, 71-74, 76 (the assessment consists of the following unpaid taxes, inclusive of
interest, surcharge and compromise penalty, namely: (1) VAT — P1,946,079,965.21; (2)
Final withholding tax on fringe benefits — P941,350,192.12; Expanded withholding tax
— P3,790,916,809.16; the BIR required PAGCOR to pay the foregoing assessment on
or before January 20, 2003).

7. Id. at 75-81 (the assessment covers: (1) deficiency VAT — P2,097,426,943.63, inclusive of
interest, surcharge and compromise penalty; and (2) deficiency final withholding tax on
fringe benefits — P855,894,742.29, inclusive of interest, surcharge and compromise
penalty; PAGCOR was required to pay the assessed deficiency taxes by April 30, 2003).

8. Id. at 9-11; 42.

9. Id. at 11, 42.

10. Id. at 10-11, 42-43.

11. Id. at 11.

12. Id. at 82-104.

13. Id. at 108-109.

14. Id. at 108-109.

15. Id. at 11.

16. Id. at 110-129.

17. Id. at 45.

18. Id.

19. Supra note 1.

20. Supra note 2.

21. Id. at 15.

22. G.R. No. 86625, December 22, 1989, 180 SCRA 609, 617.

23. G.R. Nos. 109976 and 112800, April 26, 2005, 457 SCRA 32, 81.

24. Rollo, p. 50.

25. Id. at 82-104 & 110-129.

26. Article 8, Civil Code.

27. Ang Ping v. Regional Trial Court, Br. 40 , G.R. No. L-75860, September 17, 1987, 154
SCRA 77, 86.

28. See People v. Jabinal, L-30061, February 27, 1974, 55 SCRA 607, 612.

29. Ramos v. Central Bank of the Philippines , G.R. No. L-29352, October 4, 1971, 41 SCRA
565, 584.

30. Id. at 584, citing Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, 47 Phil. 385 (1925); People v. Zulueta, 89 Phil.
752 (1951); Botelho Shipping Corporation v. Leuterio, L-20420, May 30, 1963, 8 SCRA
121.

31. An Act Restructuring the Value Added Tax (VAT) System, Widening its Tax Base and
Enhancing its Administration, and for these Purposes Amending and Repealing the
Relevant Provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended, and for
Other Purposes; effective January 1, 1996.

32. Rollo, p. 25.

33. See National Power Corp. v. Presiding Judge, RTC Branch XXV , G.R. No. 72477, October
16, 1990, 190 SCRA 477, 482.

34. G.R. No. 170680, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 159, 164-165.

35. SEC. 3. Section 102 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, is hereby further
amended to read as follows:

  SEC. 102. Value-added tax on sale of service and use or lease of properties. — x x x

  (b) Transaction subject to zero-rate . — The following services performed in the

Philippines by Vat-registered persons shall be subject to 0%:
   (1) Processing, manufacturing or repacking goods for other persons doing business
outside the Philippines which goods are subsequently exported, where the services are
paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules
and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).

  (2) Services other than those mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraph, the
consideration for which is paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).

  (3) Services rendered to persons or entities whose exemptions under special laws or
international agreements to which the Philippines is a signatory effectively subjects the
supply of such services to zero rate.

  (4) Services rendered to vessels, engaged exclusively in international shipping; and

  (5) Services performed by subcontractors and/or contractors in processing, converting,

or manufacturing goods for an enterprise whose export sales exceed seventy percent
(70%) of total annual production.

36. G.R. No. 115455, August 25, 1994, 235 SCRA 630.

37. Id. at 673-675.

38. G.R. No. 172087, March 15, 2011, 645 SCRA 338.
39. G.R. No. 147295, February 16, 2007, 516 SCRA 93.
40. Supra note 38, at 359-364.
41. Rollo, pp. 361-365.
42. Id. at 367-368.
43. Id. at 361-365.
44. Id. at 366-368.
45. Section 2.33[A], Revenue Regulations 3-98.
46. SEC. 33 Special Treatment of Fringe Benefit. —
  (A) x x x
    (B) Fringe Benefit defined. — For purposes of this Section, the term 'fringe benefit'
means any good, service or other benefit furnished or granted in cash or in kind by an
employer to an individual employee (except rank and file employees as defined
herein) such as, but not limited to, the following:
  (1) Housing;
  (2) Expense account;
  (3) Vehicle of any kind;
  (4) Household personnel, such as maid, driver and others;
  (5) Interest on loan at less than market rate to the extent of the difference between the
market rate and actual rate granted;
  (6) Membership fees, dues and other expenses borne by the employer for the
employee in social and athletic clubs or other similar organizations;
   (7) Expenses for foreign travel;
  (8) Holiday and vacation expenses;
  (9) Educational assistance to the employee or his dependents; and
  (10) Life or health insurance and other non-life insurance premiums or similar amounts
in excess of what the law allows.
47. Rollo, pp. 122, 274-275.
48. Id. at 275.
49. Id. at 73.
50. Id. at 364.
51. Id. at 272-273.
52. Id. at 316-321.
53. Id. at 97.
54. Id. at 98 and 272.
55. SEC. 24. Income Tax Rates.
  (A) x x x
  (B) Rate of Tax on Certain Passive Income.
  (1) Interests, Royalties, Prizes, and Other Winnings. — A final tax at the rate of twenty
percent (20%) is hereby imposed upon x x x; prizes (except prizes amounting to Ten
thousand pesos (P10,000) or less which shall be subject to tax under Subsection (A)
of Section 24; and other winnings (except Philippine Charity Sweepstakes and Lotto
winnings), derived from sources within the Philippines: x x x
56. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of the Philippines, Inc. v. Municipality of Tanauan, Leyte, G.R.
No. L-31156, February 27, 1976, 69 SCRA 460, 466-467.
57. Rollo, p. 273.
58. Id.
59. Collector of Internal Revenue v. Bohol Land Trans. Co. , 107 Phil. 965, 974 (1960).
60. Sec. 11 Funding. — The funds required for the implementation of this Act, including those
for health care services, insurance premiums, professional, educational, registration
fees, contracted transportation benefits, and other benefits above, shall be taken
from:
    (i) five percent (5%) of monetary awards given by the Courts to client departments,
agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, including those under court-
approved compromise agreements; x x x

n Note from the Publisher: Written as "2067-B" in the original document.