COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. ALGUE, INC., and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. CRUZ, J.

.: Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance On the other hand, such collection should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself. It is therefore necessary to reconcile the apparently conflicting interests of the authorities and the taxpayers so that the real purpose of taxation, which is the promotion of the common good, may be achieved. The main issue in this case is whether or not the Collector of Internal Revenue correctly disallowed the P75,000.00 deduction claimed by private respondent Algue as legitimate business expenses in its income tax returns. The corollary issue is whether or not the appeal of the private respondent from the decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue was made on time and in accordance with law. We deal first with the procedural question. The record shows that on January 14, 1965, the private respondent, a domestic corporation engaged in engineering, construction and other allied activities, received a letter from the petitioner assessing it in the total amount of P83,183.85 as delinquency income taxes for the years 1958 and 1959. 1 On January 18, 1965, Algue flied a letter of protest or request for reconsideration, which letter was stamp received on the same day in the office of the petitioner. 2 On March 12, 1965, a warrant of distraint and levy was presented to the private respondent, through its counsel, Atty. Alberto Guevara, Jr., who refused to receive it on the ground of the pending protest. 3 A search of the protest in the dockets of the case proved fruitless. Atty. Guevara produced his file copy and gave a photostat to BIR agent Ramon Reyes, who deferred service of the warrant. 4 On April 7, 1965, Atty. Guevara was finally informed that the BIR was not taking any action on the protest and it was only then that he accepted the warrant of distraint and levy earlier sought to be served. 5 Sixteen days later, on April 23, 1965, Algue filed a petition for review of the decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with the Court of Tax Appeals. 6 The above chronology shows that the petition was filed seasonably. According to Rep. Act No. 1125, the appeal may be made within thirty days after receipt of the decision or ruling challenged. 7 It is true that as a rule the warrant of distraint and levy is "proof of the finality of the assessment" 8 and renders hopeless a request for reconsideration," 9 being "tantamount to an outright denial thereof and makes the said request deemed rejected." 10 But there is a special circumstance in the case at bar that prevents application of this accepted doctrine. The proven fact is that four days after the private respondent received the petitioner's notice of assessment, it filed its letter of protest. This was apparently not taken into account before the warrant of distraint and levy was issued; indeed, such protest could not be located in the office of the petitioner. It was only after Atty. Guevara gave the BIR a copy of the protest that it was, if at all, considered by the tax authorities. During the intervening period, the warrant was premature and could therefore not be served. As the Court of Tax Appeals correctly noted," 11 the protest filed by private respondent was not pro forma and was based on strong legal considerations. It thus had the effect of suspending on January 18, 1965, when it was filed, the reglementary period which started on the date the assessment was received, viz., January 14, 1965. The period started running again only on April 7, 1965, when the private respondent was definitely informed of the implied rejection of the said protest and the warrant was finally served on it. Hence, when the appeal was filed on April 23, 1965, only 20 days of the reglementary period had been consumed. Now for the substantive question.

The petitioner contends that the claimed deduction of P75,000.00 was properly disallowed because it was not an ordinary reasonable or necessary business expense. The Court of Tax Appeals had seen it differently. Agreeing with Algue, it held that the said amount had been legitimately paid by the private respondent for actual services rendered. The payment was in the form of promotional fees. These were collected by the Payees for their work in the creation of the Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation of the Philippines and its subsequent purchase of the properties of the Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company. Parenthetically, it may be observed that the petitioner had Originally claimed these promotional fees to be personal holding company income 12 but later conformed to the decision of the respondent court rejecting this assertion. 13 In fact, as the said court found, the amount was earned through the joint efforts of the persons among whom it was distributed It has been established that the Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company had earlier appointed Algue as its agent, authorizing it to sell its land, factories and oil manufacturing process. Pursuant to such authority, Alberto Guevara, Jr., Eduardo Guevara, Isabel Guevara, Edith, O'Farell, and Pablo Sanchez, worked for the formation of the Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation, inducing other persons to invest in it. 14 Ultimately, after its incorporation largely through the promotion of the said persons, this new corporation purchased the PSEDC properties. 15 For this sale, Algue received as agent a commission of P126,000.00, and it was from this commission that the P75,000.00 promotional fees were paid to the aforenamed individuals. 16 There is no dispute that the payees duly reported their respective shares of the fees in their income tax returns and paid the corresponding taxes thereon. 17 The Court of Tax Appeals also found, after examining the evidence, that no distribution of dividends was involved. 18 The petitioner claims that these payments are fictitious because most of the payees are members of the same family in control of Algue. It is argued that no indication was made as to how such payments were made, whether by check or in cash, and there is not enough substantiation of such payments. In short, the petitioner suggests a tax dodge, an attempt to evade a legitimate assessment by involving an imaginary deduction. We find that these suspicions were adequately met by the private respondent when its President, Alberto Guevara, and the accountant, Cecilia V. de Jesus, testified that the payments were not made in one lump sum but periodically and in different amounts as each payee's need arose. 19 It should be remembered that this was a family corporation where strict business procedures were not applied and immediate issuance of receipts was not required. Even so, at the end of the year, when the books were to be closed, each payee made an accounting of all of the fees received by him or her, to make up the total of P75,000.00. 20 Admittedly, everything seemed to be informal. This arrangement was understandable, however, in view of the close relationship among the persons in the family corporation. We agree with the respondent court that the amount of the promotional fees was not excessive. The total commission paid by the Philippine Sugar Estate Development Co. to the private respondent was P125,000.00. 21 After deducting the said fees, Algue still had a balance of P50,000.00 as clear profit from the transaction. The amount of P75,000.00 was 60% of the total commission. This was a reasonable proportion, considering that it was the payees who did practically everything, from the formation of the Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation to the actual purchase by it of the Sugar Estate properties. This finding of the respondent court is in accord with the following provision of the Tax Code: SEC. 30. Deductions from gross income.--In computing net income there shall be allowed as deductions (a) Expenses: (1) In general.--All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for

personal services actually rendered; ... 22 and Revenue Regulations No. 2, Section 70 (1), reading as follows: SEC. 70. Compensation for personal services.--Among the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on any trade or business may be included a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered. The test of deductibility in the case of compensation payments is whether they are reasonable and are, in fact, payments purely for service. This test and deductibility in the case of compensation payments is whether they are reasonable and are, in fact, payments purely for service. This test and its practical application may be further stated and illustrated as follows: Any amount paid in the form of compensation, but not in fact as the purchase price of services, is not deductible. (a) An ostensible salary paid by a corporation may be a distribution of a dividend on stock. This is likely to occur in the case of a corporation having few stockholders, Practically all of whom draw salaries. If in such a case the salaries are in excess of those ordinarily paid for similar services, and the excessive payment correspond or bear a close relationship to the stockholdings of the officers of employees, it would seem likely that the salaries are not paid wholly for services rendered, but the excessive payments are a distribution of earnings upon the stock. . . . (Promulgated Feb. 11, 1931, 30 O.G. No. 18, 325.) It is worth noting at this point that most of the payees were not in the regular employ of Algue nor were they its controlling stockholders. 23 The Solicitor General is correct when he says that the burden is on the taxpayer to prove the validity of the claimed deduction. In the present case, however, we find that the onus has been discharged satisfactorily. The private respondent has proved that the payment of the fees was necessary and reasonable in the light of the efforts exerted by the payees in inducing investors and prominent businessmen to venture in an experimental enterprise and involve themselves in a new business requiring millions of pesos. This was no mean feat and should be, as it was, sufficiently recompensed. It is said that taxes are what we pay for civilization society. Without taxes, the government would be paralyzed for lack of the motive power to activate and operate it. Hence, despite the natural reluctance to surrender part of one's hard earned income to the taxing authorities, every person who is able to must contribute his share in the running of the government. The government for its part, is expected to respond in the form of tangible and intangible benefits intended to improve the lives of the people and enhance their moral and material values. This symbiotic relationship is the rationale of taxation and should dispel the erroneous notion that it is an arbitrary method of exaction by those in the seat of power. But even as we concede the inevitability and indispensability of taxation, it is a requirement in all democratic regimes that it be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. If it is not, then the taxpayer has a right to complain and the courts will then come to his succor. For all the awesome power of the tax collector, he may still be stopped in his tracks if the taxpayer can demonstrate, as it has here, that the law has not been observed. We hold that the appeal of the private respondent from the decision of the petitioner was filed on time with the respondent court in accordance with Rep. Act No. 1125. And we also find that the claimed deduction by the private respondent was permitted under the Internal Revenue Code and should therefore not have been disallowed by the petitioner.

(NAWASA), respondents. Gabriel V. Valero and Rodolfo F. de Gorostiza for petitioner. Manuel B. Roo for respondent National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority. CONCEPCION, J.: This is a petition for review of a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals reversing a resolution or decision of the Board of Assessment Appeals for the Province of Laguna. The question involved in this case is whether the water pipes, reservoir, intake and buildings used by herein respondent, National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority hereinafter referred to as NAWASA in the operation of its waterworks system in the municipalities of Cabuyao, Sta. Rosa and Bian, province of Laguna, are subject to real estate tax. Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts. 1wph1.t The parties have submitted in the Court of Tax Appeals a stipulation of facts. The pertinent parts thereof are to the effect: 1. That the petitioner National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NWSA) is a public corporation created by virtue of Republic Act No. 1383, and that it is owned by the Government of the Philippines as well as all property comprising waterworks and sewerage systems placed under it:. 2. That, pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 1383, petitioner NWSA took over all the property of the former Metropolitan Water District and all the existing local government-owned waterworks and sewerage systems all over the Philippines, including the Cabuyao-Sta. Rosa-Bian Waterworks System owned by the Province of Laguna (Section 8, Republic Act No. 1283); 3. That the functions and activities of petitioner NWSA, as enumerated in Republic Act No. 1383, more particularly Section 2 thereof, are the same and identical with the functions of the defunct Metropolitan Water District, particularly Section 2, Act 2832, is amended; 4. That petitioner National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NWSA) has no capital stock divided into shares of stocks, no stockholders, and is not authorized by its Charter to distribute dividends; and, on the other hand, whatever surplus funds it has realized, may and will after meeting its yearly obligations, have been, are and may be, used for the construction, expansion and improvement of its waterworks and sewer services; 5. That at the time that the Cabuyao-Sta. Rosa-Bian Waterworks System was taken over by petitioner NWSA in 1956, the former was self-supporting and revenue-producing, but that all its surplus income are not declared as profits as this surplus are or may be invested for the expansion thereof; 6. That in the year 1956 the Provincial Assessor of Laguna assessed, for purposes of real estate taxes, the property comprising the Cabuyao-Sta. Rosa-Bian Waterworks System and described in Tax Declaration No. 5987 (Exh. "A-l") which, as stated in Paragraph 2 hereof, herein petitioner NWSA had taken over; 7. That against the above-mentioned assessment made by the Provincial Assessor of Laguna, petitioner NWSA protested, claiming that the property described under Tax Declaration No. 5987 (Exh. "A-l") are

BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, PROVINCE OF LAGUNA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and THE NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

exempted from the payment of real estate taxes in view of the nature and kind of said property and functions and activities of petitioner, as provided in Republic Act No. 1383;. 8. That the said protest of petitioner NWSA was overruled on appeal before the herein respondent Board of Assessment Appeals, hence the present petition for review filed by petitioner; xxx xxx xxx"

the view point of dominion, than from that of domain. Moreover, taxes are financial burdens imposed for the purpose of raising revenues with which to defray the cost of the operation of the Government, and a tax on property of the Government, whether national or local, would merely have the effect of taking money from one pocket to put it in another pocket (Cooley on Taxation, Sec. 621, 4th Edition.) Hence, it would not serve, in the final analysis, the main purpose of taxation. What is more, it would tend to defeat it, on account of the paper work, time and consequently, expenses it would entail. (The Law on Local Taxation, by Justiniano Y. Castillo, p. 13.) Section 1 of the Republic Act No. 101, upon which petitioner relies, reads:

After appropriate proceedings, the Court of Tax Appeals rendered the aforementioned decision reversing the action taken by petitioner Board, which, accordingly, has brought the case to us for review, under the provisions of Republic Act No. 1125, contending that the properties in question are subject to real estate tax because: (1) although said properties belong to the Republic of the Philippines, the same holds it, not in its governmental, political or sovereign capacity, but in a private, proprietary or patrimonial character, which, allegedly, is not covered by the exemption contained in section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 470; and 2) this exemption, even if applicable to patrimonial property, must yield to the provisions of section 1 of Republic Act No. 104, under which all corporations, agencies or instrumentalities owned or controlled by the Government are subject to taxation, according to petitioner appellant. Sections 2 and 3(a) of Commonwealth Act No. 470 provide: SEC. 2. Incidence of real property tax. Except in chartered cities, there shall be levied, assessed, and collected, an annual ad valorem tax on real property, including land, buildings, machinery, and other improvements not hereinafter specifically exempted. SEC. 3. Property exempt from tax. The exemptions shall be as follows: (a) Property owned by . . . the Republic of the Philippines, any province, city, municipality or municipal district. . . . It is conceded, in the stipulation of facts, that the property involved in this case "is owned by the Government of the Philippines". Hence, it belongs to the Republic of the Philippines and falls squarely within the letter of the above provision. This notwithstanding, petitioner Board maintains that respondent NAWASA is not entitled to the benefits of the exemption established in said section 3(a), inasmuch as, in the case of the City of Cebu vs. NAWASA, G. R. No. L-12892, decided on April 30, 1960, we ruled that the assets of the water system of the City of Cebu, which the NAWASA had sought to take over, pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 1383 as it did in the case at bar, with respect to the Cabuyao-Sta. Rosa-Bian Waterworks System are patrimonial property of said city, which held it in a proprietary character, not in its governmental capacity. We did not declare, however, in the Cebu case that said assets were subject to taxation. In that case we merely reiterated the doctrine, laid down in the case of City of Baguio vs. NAWASA, G. R. No. L-12032, decided on August 31, 1959, that municipal corporations hold in their proprietary character, the assets of their respective waterworks, which, accordingly, cannot be taken or appropriated by the National Government and placed under the NAWASA without payment of just compensation. Neither the Cebu case nor that of Baguio sustains the theory that said assets are taxable. Upon the other hand, in exempting from taxation "property owned by the Republic of the Philippines, any province, city, municipality or municipal district . . .," said section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 470 makes no distinction between property held in a sovereign, governmental or political capacity and those possessed in a private, proprietary or patrimonial character. And where the law does not distinguish neither may we, unless there are facts and circumstances clearly showing that the lawmaker intended the contrary, but no such facts and circumstances have been brought to our attention. Indeed, the noun "property" and the verb "owned" used in said section 3(a) strongly suggest that the object of exemption is considered more from

. . . All corporations, agencies, or instrumentalities owned or controlled by the government shall pay such duties, taxes, fees and other charges upon their transaction, business, industries, sale, or income as are imposed by law upon individuals, associations or corporations engaged in any taxable business, industry, or activity except on goods or commodities imported or purchased and sold or distributed for relief purposes as may be determined by the President of the Philippines. This provision is inapplicable to the case at bar for it refers only to duties, taxes, fees and other charges upon "transaction, business, industry, sale or income" and does not include taxes on property like real estate tax.