Title
Supreme Court
Association of International Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Fice
Case
G.R. No. 222239
Decision Date
Jan 15, 2020
Shipping companies challenged tax regulations on demurrage fees; SC upheld RR 15-2013, denying declaratory relief due to jurisdictional and procedural grounds.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 222239)

2012 RTC Decision on RMC 31-2008

Petitioners first sought declaratory relief in December 2010 against RMC 31-2008. RTC-Branch 98 ruled in May 2012 that:

  • Demurrage and detention fees form part of Gross Philippine Billings (GPB) subject to 2.5% tax under Section 28, not regular income tax or 12% VAT
  • Domestic portions of international shipping services and certain commissions were not subject to 12% VAT
    The order became final June 16, 2012.

RA 10378 and Issuance of RR 15-2013

RA 10378 (March 2013) amended Section 28(A)(3)(a) to define GPB for international carriers and codify a 2.5% tax on GPB, with exemption or preferential treatment based on reciprocity or tax treaties. Section 5 directed the Secretary of Finance to promulgate implementing rules, leading to RR 15-2013 (September 2013).

Petition Challenging RR 15-2013

In December 2013 petitioners challenged Section 4.4 of RR 15-2013, which treats all income items outside GPB—specifically demurrage and detention fees—as Philippine-sourced income subject to regular income tax. They invoked res judicata based on the 2012 RTC order and argued RR 15-2013 exceeded statutory authority and lacked public hearing and UP Law Center registration.

Trial Court Ruling: Jurisdiction and Res Judicata

RTC-Branch 77 granted judicial notice of prior rulings and RA 10378 but:

  • Held it lacked jurisdiction under CA 55 to entertain petitions challenging tax regulations
  • Found no res judicata because the Secretary of Finance was not party to the 2012 case and issuances emanated from distinct authorities
  • Upheld RR 15-2013 as a reasonable interpretative regulation not requiring public hearing or UP Law Center filing

Supreme Court: Res Judicata Does Not Apply

The Court confirmed res judicata requires identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Here:

  • Parties differ: the 2012 case bound only the CIR, not the Secretary of Finance
  • Subject matter differs: RMC 31-2008 (CIR’s circular) arose under Section 4 NIRC, whereas RR 15-2013 was issued by the Secretary under Section 244 NIRC and Section 5 of RA 10378
    Thus, no bar by prior judgment.

Proper Remedy: Treat as Prohibition/Certiorari

Commonwealth Act No. 55 bars regional courts from declaratory relief over tax liabilities. A petition for declaratory relief cannot challenge tax regulations; the proper vehicle is certiorari or prohibition under the Court’s discretionary appellate jurisdiction. The Court nevertheless treated the petition as one for prohibition given the significant public interest and protracted litigation.

Validity of RR 15-2013 on Demurrage and Detention Fees

RA 10378 defines GPB as gross revenue from carriage of passengers, cargo, or mail originating in the Philippines to final destination. RR 15-2013 correctly excludes demurrage (rent‐like compensation for vessel detention) and detention fees (charges for extended use of containers) from GPB. Those fees constitute other Philippine-sourced income and are thus subjec

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.