CITY OF MANILA vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC.

FACTS:
Respondent paid the local business tax only as a manufacturers as it was expressly exempted from the
business tax under a different section and which applied to businesses subject to excise, VAT or
percentage tax under the Tax Code. The City of Manila subsequently amended the ordinance by deleting
the provision exempting businesses under the latter section if they have already paid taxes under a
different section in the ordinance. This amending ordinance was later declared by the Supreme Court
null and void. Respondent then filed a protest on the ground of double taxation. RTC decided in favor of
Respondent and the decision was received by Petitioner on April 20, 2007. On May 4, 2007, Petitioner
filed with the CTA a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review asking for a 15-day
extension or until May 20, 2007 within which to file its Petition. A second Motion for Extension was filed
on May 18, 2007, this time asking for a 10-day extension to file the Petition. Petitioner finally filed the
Petition on May 30, 2007 even if the CTA had earlier issued a resolution dismissing the case for failure to
timely file the Petition.

ISSUES:
(1) Has Petitioner’s the right to appeal with the CTA lapsed?
(2) Does the enforcement of the latter section of the tax ordinance constitute double taxation?

HELD:
(1) NO. Petitioner complied with the reglementary period for filing the petition. From April 20, 2007,
Petitioner had 30 days, or until May 20, 2007, within which to file their Petition for Review with the CTA.
The Motion for Extension filed by the petitioners on May 18, 2007, prior to the lapse of the 30-day
period on 20 May 2007, in which they prayed for another extended period of 10 days, or until 30 May
2007, to file their Petition for Review was, in reality, only the first Motion for Extension of petitioners.
Thus, when Petitioner filed their Petition via registered mail their Petition for Review on 30 May 2007,
they were able to comply with the period for filing such a petition.

(2) YES. There is indeed double taxation if respondent is subjected to the taxes under both Sections 14
and 21 of the tax ordinance since these are being imposed: (1) on the same subject matter — the
privilege of doing business in the City of Manila; (2) for the same purpose — to make persons
conducting business within the City of Manila contribute to city revenues; (3) by the same taxing
authority — petitioner City of Manila; (4) within the same taxing jurisdiction — within the territorial
jurisdiction of the City of Manila; (5) for the same taxing periods — per calendar year; and (6) of the
same kind or character — a local business tax imposed on gross sales or receipts of the business.
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM vs. CITY TREASURER OF MANILA

FACTS:
Petitioner GSIS owns or used to own two (2) parcels of land, Katigbak property and
Concepcion-Arroceros property. Both the GSIS and the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of
Manila occupy the Concepcion-Arroceros property, while the Katigbak property was under
lease with Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC).

The City Treasurer of Manila assessed GSIS unpaid real property taxes due from 1992 to
2002, broken down as follows: (a) PhP54,826,599.37 for the Katigbak property; and (b)
PhP48,498,917.01 for the Concepcion-Arroceros property. The letter warned of the inclusion
of the subject properties public auction of all delinquent properties in Manila should the unpaid
taxes remain unsettled.

The City Treasurer of Manila issued separate Notices of Realty Tax Delinquency with warning
of seizure and/or sale. GSIS wrote back emphasizing the GSIS' exemption from all kinds of
taxes, including realty taxes, under Republic Act No. (RA) 8291.
GSIS filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a restraining and injunctive
relief before the Manila RTC. RTC dismissed GSIS petition and ruled that it is liable.

ISSUES:
1. Whether petitioner is exempt from the payment of real property taxes from 1992 to 2002;
2. Whether petitioner is exempt from the payment of real property taxes on the property it
leased to a taxable entity; and
3. Whether petitioner's real properties are exempt from warrants of levy and from tax sale for
non-payment of real property taxes.

HELD:
1. Pursuant to Sec. 33 of PD 1146, GSIS enjoyed tax exemption from real estate taxes, among other tax
burdens, until January 1, 1992 when the LGC took effect and withdrew exemptions from payment of real
estate taxes privileges granted under PD 1146; (2) RA 8291 restored in 1997 the tax exempt
status of GSIS by reenacting under its Sec. 39 what was once Sec. 33 of P.D. 1146; and (3) If
any real estate tax is due to the City of Manila, it is, only for the interim period, or from 1992
to 1996, to be precise.

2. The leased Katigbak property shall be taxable pursuant to the "beneficial use" principle under
Sec. 234 (a) of the LGC. The provisions allow the Republic to grant the beneficial use of its property to an
agency or instrumentality of the national government. Such grant does not necessarily result in the loss
of the tax exemption. The tax exemption the property of the Republic or its instrumentality carries
ceases only if, as stated in Sec. 234 (a) of the LGC of 1991, "beneficial use thereof has been
granted, for a consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person." GSIS, as a government
instrumentality, is not a taxable juridical person under Sec. 133 (o) of the LGC. GSIS, however,
lost in a sense that status with respect to the Katigbak property when it contracted its beneficial
use to MHC, doubtless a taxable person.

Thus, the real estate tax assessment of PhP54,826,599.37 covering 1992 to 2002 over the subject
Katigbak property is valid insofar as said tax delinquency is concerned as assessed over said property.
3. GSIS Properties Exempt from Levy. A valid tax levy presupposes a corresponding tax liability.
Nonetheless, it will not be remiss to note that it is without doubt that the subject GSIS properties are
exempt from any attachment, garnishment, execution, levy, or other legal processes.