Title
Film Development Council of the Philippines vs. Colon Heritage Realty Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 203754
Decision Date
Nov 3, 2020
FDCP's claim to amusement taxes voided post-Oct 15, 2019; SMPHI not required to remit taxes for films exhibited after that date.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 10033)

Applicable Law

The relevant law is Republic Act No. 9167, which created the FDCP and established provisions regarding amusement taxes on graded films. Specifically, Sections 13 and 14 address the powers of the FDCP to collect these taxes, which were initially deemed unconstitutional due to their implications on local fiscal autonomy, as these funds should have rightfully accrued to local government units (LGUs).

Court's Findings on Constitutionality

In the decision rendered on June 16, 2015, the Supreme Court held that Sections 13 and 14 of RA 9167 were unconstitutional because they resulted in the effective confiscation of amusement taxes that should have benefited the LGUs. The Court emphasized that these provisions violated the principle of local fiscal autonomy by allowing the FDCP to allocate tax revenues that were due to local governments.

Operative Fact Doctrine Application

In light of the unconstitutionality finding, the Court applied the doctrine of operative fact, which acknowledged that prior to the provisions being invalidated, stakeholders had relied on them. The Court ruled that amounts previously collected under Sections 13 and 14 would not have to be returned, and assets already received would not require reimbursement to stakeholders, as these transactions had legal effects up until the declaration of unconstitutionality.

Motion for Clarification and Issues Involved

On January 8, 2020, SMPHI filed an urgent motion for clarification regarding the implications of the Supreme Court’s prior rulings, particularly related to amusement taxes due for remittance post-October 15, 2019. This hearing aimed to determine whether the taxes accrued from films exhibited during the Metro Manila Film Festival after the finality of the Court's ruling should be remitted to the FDCP or were due to the LGUs.

Amusement Tax Accrual and Remittance

SMPHI contended that the amusement taxes collected from films exhibited after the Court received its October 15, 2019 ruling were not due for remittance to the FDCP until a month after their exhibition. Conversely, the FDCP argued that amusement taxes related to sales completed before its acknowledgment of the Court's decision should have already accrued in favor of the FDCP, thus requiring remittance.

Court’s Ruling on Clarification Request

The Court clarified that once it denied the FDCP’s motion for reconsideration with finality on October 15, 2019, the authority of the FDCP to collect amusement taxes from the exhibition of graded films ceased. The Court reinforced that the operative fact doctrine had a limited scope, removing FDCP’s rights to amusement tax collections on films exhibited after the finality of the decision. The Supreme Court reiterated that any amuseme

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.