Title
Manila Electric Co. vs. Province of Laguna
Case
G.R. No. 131359
Decision Date
May 5, 1999
MERALCO challenged Laguna's 50% franchise tax under Ordinance No. 01-92, claiming it violated P.D. No. 551's 2% cap. The Supreme Court upheld the ordinance, ruling the Local Government Code of 1991 superseded P.D. No. 551, allowing LGUs to impose taxes and withdraw prior exemptions.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 142612)

Pertinent Facts

  • Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), effective January 1, 1992, authorized LGUs to create revenue sources.
  • Laguna Provincial Ordinance No. 01-92, effective January 1, 1993, imposed a franchise tax of 0.5% of gross annual receipts.
  • The Provincial Treasurer demanded payment; MERALCO paid ₱19,520,628.42 under protest and filed an administrative refund claim, invoking PD 551’s 2% in-lieu-of-all-taxes provision.
  • Governor Lina denied the claim on August 28, 1995. MERALCO then filed a refund complaint before the RTC on February 14, 1996, adding subsequent protested payments totaling ₱27,669,566.91.
  • The RTC dismissed the complaint on September 30, 1997, upholding the ordinance’s validity. MERALCO elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Applicable Constitutional and Statutory Provisions

  • 1987 Constitution, Article X, Secs. 3 & 5: grants LGUs power to levy taxes, fees, charges under guidelines set by Congress.
  • Presidential Decree No. 551, Sec. 1: fixes a 2% franchise tax on electric utilities, payable to the national government “in lieu of all taxes and assessments of whatever nature.”
  • RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991):
    • Sec. 137: authorizes provinces to impose a franchise tax up to 0.5% of gross receipts.
    • Sec. 193: withdraws all prior tax exemptions or incentives, except those expressly preserved.
    • Sec. 534(f): repeals or modifies all laws inconsistent with the Code.

Issues Presented

  1. Does Laguna Ordinance No. 01-92 violate PD 551 and the Constitution’s non-impairment clause?
  2. Did RA 7160 repeal, amend, or modify PD 551?
  3. Is the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applicable?

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The petition is dismissed. Laguna Provincial Ordinance No. 01-92 is valid, reasonable, and enforceable; MERALCO’s administrative remedy was properly invoked; PD 551’s exemption does not bar the provincial franchise tax.

Court’s Analysis of Local Taxing Power

Under the 1987 Constitution, LGUs enjoy broad taxing authority unless explicitly restricted. Congress implemented this delegation through RA 7160, prescribing guidelines and limits but affirming local autonomy. Absent statutory prohibition, provinces may levy franchise taxes within prescribed rates.

Effect of the Local Government Code on Prior Exemptions

RA 7160’s Sec. 193 withdrawn existing exemptions; Sec. 534 repealed inconsistent laws. The Code’s peremptory withdrawal of privileges overrides PD 551’s in-lieu-of-all-taxes clause insofar as local taxation is concerned. In City of San Pablo v. Reyes, the Court held that franchise exemptions must yield to the Local Government Code’s express repeal of special pri

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.