Title
Balanga Power Plant Co. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Case
G.R. No. L-20499
Decision Date
Jun 30, 1965
A power company disputes a 5% franchise tax, arguing its municipal franchises mandate 2%. Court rules 5% applies, citing legislative power to modify franchises.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-20499)

Factual Background

The case revolves around the Balanga Power Plant Company, Inc., a Filipino corporation that holds multiple municipal franchises to operate an electric power plant in the province of Bataan, specifically in six municipalities including Balanga and Samal. The franchises grant the petitioner the authority to operate under specified tax rates, set at 1% for the first twenty years and 2% for the subsequent fifteen years on gross earnings from the electric power business.

Tax Assessment Overview

The Bureau of Internal Revenue assessed a deficiency franchise tax initially amounting to P12,892.91 for the period from October 1, 1953, to June 30, 1957. This amount was later amended to P26,253.04 based on a subsequent audit. The essential issue in dispute was whether the petitioner should be liable for the 2% franchise tax specified in the municipal franchises or the higher 5% tax imposed by Section 259 of the National Internal Revenue Code.

Legal Issue and Court Appeal

The primary legal question was whether applying the higher 5% franchise tax infringed upon the contractual agreements laid out in the municipal franchises, which explicitly stated a 2% tax. The Court of Tax Appeals ruled in favor of the respondent, concluding that none of the municipal franchises included a provision stating that the 2% tax was exclusive of other taxes, thus allowing for the imposition of the higher tax rate.

Constitutional Considerations

The Court examined whether the enforcement of Section 259 of the National Internal Revenue Code contravened constitutional mandates against the impairment of contractual obligations. The Court determined that the franchises granted to the petitioner were inherently subject to the legislative power to modify or amend, as established under the provisions of Act No. 667. Consequently, the application of the 5% tax was considered valid and consistent with the reserved legislative authority.

Precedent and Judicial Reasoning

The Court referred to the precedential decisions in the Hoa Hin Co. cases, emphasizing the principle that legislative changes to licensing can govern tax obligations. The Court distinguished between the nature of the franchises held by the petitioner and legislative franchises. It reite

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.