Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    NTC Vs CA and PLDT

    Uploaded by

    Ish
    The Supreme Court ruled that the NTC correctly based its computation of supervision and regulation fees on PLDT's subscribed capital stock rather than its property and equipment. The Court affirmed that under Section 40(f) of the Public Service Act, as amended, the fee is to be computed based on "the capital stock subscribed or paid" by the company. While the NTC imposes the fee, it is mandated to do so by the legislature, which has the authority to tax corporations through its police and taxation powers. The Court upheld the NTC's assessment against PLDT.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    NTC Vs CA and PLDT

    Uploaded by

    Ish
    1K views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the NTC correctly based its computation of supervision and regulation fees on PLDT's subscribed capital stock rather than its property and equipment. The Court affirmed that under Section 40(f) of the Public Service Act, as amended, the fee is to be computed based on "the capital stock subscribed or paid" by the company. While the NTC imposes the fee, it is mandated to do so by the legislature, which has the authority to tax corporations through its police and taxation powers. The Court upheld the NTC's assessment against PLDT.

    Original Description:

    tax

    Original Title

    ntc vs CA and Pldt

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the NTC correctly based its computation of supervision and regulation fees on PLDT's subscribed capital stock rather than its property and equipment. The Court affirmed that under Section 40(f) of the Public Service Act, as amended, the fee is to be computed based on "the capital stock subscribed or paid" by the company. While the NTC imposes the fee, it is mandated to do so by the legislature, which has the authority to tax corporations through its police and taxation powers. The Court upheld the NTC's assessment against PLDT.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    1K views2 pages

    NTC Vs CA and PLDT

    Uploaded by

    Ish
    The Supreme Court ruled that the NTC correctly based its computation of supervision and regulation fees on PLDT's subscribed capital stock rather than its property and equipment. The Court affirmed that under Section 40(f) of the Public Service Act, as amended, the fee is to be computed based on "the capital stock subscribed or paid" by the company. While the NTC imposes the fee, it is mandated to do so by the legislature, which has the authority to tax corporations through its police and taxation powers. The Court upheld the NTC's assessment against PLDT.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    NTC vs CA and PLDT Whether or not the CA erred in holding that

    GR No. 127937, July 28, 1999 the computation of supervision


    311 SCRA 508 a n d regulation fees under section 40 (f)
    of the PSA should be based on the par value of
    Facts: the subscribed capital stock.

    Sometime in 1988, the NTC served on PLDT Held:


    assessment notices and demands for
    payment under Section 40 (e) (f) and (g) o f Yes. The ruling is clear in the case of PLDT vs PSC,
    the Public Service Act (PSA). PLDT 66 SCRA 341, that the basis for computation
    challenged the aforesaid assessments. of the fee to be charged by N T C o n
    On September 29, 1993, the NTC PLDT, is “the capital stock
    rendered a Decision in NTC Case No. 90-223, subscribed or paid and not, alternatively, the
    denying the protest of PLDT due to lack of merit. property and equipment.” The
    On October 1993, PLDT interposed a fee in question is based on the
    M o t io n fo r Reco ns i der at io n w h ic h w as c a p i t a l s t o c k s u bsc r ibe d o r pa i d,
    denied by NTC in an Order issued on n o t hi n g le ss no t h in g more. It should be
    May1994. PLDT then appealed the reiterated that the proper b a s i s f o r t h e
    aforesaid Decision to the Court of Appeals. c o m p u t a t i o n o f s u b j e c t f e e under
    The Court of Appeals ordered the NTC to Section 40(e) of the Public Service Act, as
    compute the a s s e s s m e n t s a n d d e m a n d s amended by Republic Act No. 3792,is “the
    f o r p a y m e n t again. On November 20, 1996, capital stock subscribed or paid and n o t ,
    NTC moved for partial alternatively, the property and
    reconsideration of the equipment. “ I t b e a r s s tr e s s i n g t h a t i t is
    abovementioned decision, with respect to not the NTC that imposed such a fee.
    the basis of the assessment under I t i s t h e legislature itself. Since Congress
    Section4 0 (e) i.e. the par v alue o f the has the power to exercise the State inherent
    subscribed c a p i t a l s t o c k . I t a l s o powers o f P o l i c e P o w e r , E m i n e n t
    s o u g h t a p a r t i a l reconsideration of D o m a i n a n d Taxation , the distinction
    the fee of fifty (P0.50) centavos for the between po lice power and the power to
    issuance or increasing of t h e c a p i t a l tax, which could be significant if the
    s t o c k u n d e r S e c t i o n 4 0 ( f ) . However, exercising authority were mere political
    the CA denied the motions. With the denial of subdivisions, would not be of a n y m o m e n t
    its motions for reconsideration by the when, as in the case under
    Resolution of the Court of Appeals, consideration, Congress itself exercises the
    petitioner found its way to this Court. power. All that is to be done would be to
    apply and enforce the law when sufficiently
    Issue: definitive and not constitutional infirm.

    You might also like