San Pablo Manufacturing Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Facts: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_147749_2006.html

Facts:

SPMC is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of milling, manufacturing and exporting of coconut oil and other allied products. It was assessed and ordered to pay by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue the total amount of P8,182,182.85 representing deficiency miller’s tax and manufacturer’s sales tax,among other deficiency taxes, for taxable year 1987. The deficiency miller’s tax was imposed on SPMC’s sales of crude oil to United Coconut Chemicals, Inc. (UNICHEM) while the deficiency sales tax was applied on its sales of corn and edible oil as manufactured products.
SPMC opposed the assessments but the Commissioner denied its protest. SPMC appealed to CTA but the tax on sales of corn and edible opils was only cancelled and the miller's tax was upheld. The CA, on the other hand, dismissed the petition on the ground that the verification and certification against forum shopping was lacking.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not the CA erred when it dismissed the petition on the ground that it did not comply with the requirements and verification against forum shopping.
(2) Whether or not SPMC's sale of crude oil to UNICHEM was subject to 3% miller's tax.


Held:
(1) No, CA did not err in the dismissal of the petition. Under Rule 43, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, appeals from the CTA and quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals should be verified. A pleading required to be verified which lacks proper verification shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.
Moreover, a petition for review under Rule 43 requires a sworn certification against forum shopping. Failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the requirements of a petition for review is sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
In the case at bar, the petition of SPMC was not properly verified. SPMC merely relied on the alleged inherent power of its chief financial officer to represent SPMC in all matters regarding the finances of the corporation including, among others, the filing of suits to defend or protect it from assessments and to recover erroneously paid taxes. SPMC even admitted that no power of attorney, secretary’s certificate or board resolution to prove the affiant’s authority was attached to the petition. Thus, the petition was not properly verified. Since the petition lacked proper verification, it was to be treated as an unsigned pleading subject to dismissal.

(2) SPMC's sale of crude coconut oil to UNICHEM was subject to the 3% miller's tax.

The language of the exempting clause of Section 168 of the 1987 Tax Code was clear. The tax exemption applied only to the exportation of rope, coconut oil, palm oil, copra by-products and dessicated coconuts, whether in their original state or as an ingredient or part of any manufactured article or products, by the proprietor or operator of the factory or by the miller himself.
The language of the exemption proviso did not warrant the interpretation advanced by SPMC. Nowhere did it provide that the exportation made by the purchaser of the materials enumerated in the exempting clause or the manufacturer of products utilizing the said materials was covered by the exemption. Since SPMC’s situation was not within the ambit of the exemption, it was subject to the 3% miller’s tax imposed under Section 168 of the 1987 Tax Code.

Where the law enumerates the subject or condition upon which it applies, it is to be construed as excluding from its effects all those not expressly mentioned. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Anything that is not included in the enumeration is excluded therefrom and a meaning that does not appear nor is intended or reflected in the very language of the statute cannot be placed therein.20 The rule proceeds from the premise that the legislature would not have made specific enumerations in a statute if it had the intention not to restrict its meaning and confine its terms to those expressly mentioned.
The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius is a canon of restrictive interpretation. Its application in this case is consistent with the construction of tax exemptions in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer. To allow SPMC’s claim for tax exemption will violate these established principles and unduly derogate sovereign authority.