LUNG CENTER vs. QUEZON CITY

"Anything essential is invisible to the eye" - The Little Prince

"The most important things in life are not material things. They are inner qualities like love, courage, forgiveness, tolerance, curiosity, openness and generosity of spirit.. character"

I said "Hi I need somethin' to fix my hair" And this Bench girl replied "Ah walk this way sir" She led me to this stand and gave me one of those 'F I X' gel type that says AGENT BOND and stood too close to me. Grrrr... I dunno what comes next... 007 takes her and smacks her and then points his Walter PPK at her (pun intended) or.. asks her "How long will it hold?" I was hoping she'd say "Aahhh sooo looooohhhng" LOL. (just kidding).

Alright! alright!... I know!... girls reading this would say I don't have a halo over my head. And boy they'd probably say.. "U-uh spooky". LOL Mind you.. 'spooky' is a little bit tamed than 'creepy' hahaha.

I dunno, there's this study that came out in the early 90's that says usually when a guy and a girl meet up for a date, out of 10 girls, 9 would be thinking about romance. And out of 10 boys 9 would be thinking about sex. Spooky huh? Well don't think much about it, it's just one of those morbid Sigmund Freud theory based write-up. I don't think it has much of concluded scientific findings. It's pure entertainment. Besides, it's not even in Philippine setting. And of course we can always listen to what Carl Jung has to say. And his theories lean more to what is honorable and decent. And he has a lot to say actually. Other than.. somethin' spookey!! I guess women are just prone to over-analize. Even when there's nothin' really there actually.

And BTW You know what spooky is? Ah forget the dictionary I want a raw example. You know that kid that... how do I say this.. like.. when little girls go play with their dolls? There's always this type of kid that seemed neglected at first glance. Like probably the younger brother of one of the little girls? A quiet sullen strong-willed child. He's not joining the girls playing with their dolls, he's eyeing the toy car.. the barbie top convertible?  'the hell if its pink..  as long as it goes "broom! broom!", nope he's not color-blind he's actually seeing it in different color.. indigo? And besides, its just so happen that he's there, he just stands there quietly holding his feeding bottle next to the girls.. and what's spooky about it is he's known to having this freaky stare LOL the girls would say "Eeewww spookyy" and laugh. But don't worry, they're not probably complaining about the stare at all. It's most likely he's not wearing any pants on (hahaha) and his little birdie's just dangles out there. And even if you put a pair of pants on him his fly would still be most probably open. Well of course he can't speak since he's just a baby that sucks on his milk bottle every once in a while, but he got this crazy stare like.. gosh he seems to know everything LOL. Like he's reading your mind. Spooky huh? I should know. I was a bit of a spooky child my self.

Here's what happens, he stares at the girls.. then stares at the barbie dolls.. then stares back at the girls LOL.. and he's never saying anything. I dunno, seems like he's thinking 'what a stupid toy, why don't they just swat a fly with it' or 'girls are stupid, they look stupid, and they talk stupid' but he's not, he's just alright with that. I mean he's not degrading anything or anyone, especially the girls. It's 'live and let live' for him. But you get intrigued co'z you actually don't know what's goin' on in his mind. And when his big sister tells her "get inside" by urgent request of the other girls, he'd just yell and scratch his balls and if insistent boy he'd unleash that deep dark stare and a ferocious tantrum that sends him stumping his feet and throwing his feeding bottle or teddy bear at her sister LOL. Then he'd go back at the same spot.. staring at the girls and the dolls wondering "what the hell are they fuckin' doing?" LOL

But don't fret. These spooky silent types are the ones who's really matinik sa chiks pag laki. They usually grow handsome. Those little girls are maybe complaining.. but wait till they see him smile. They'll be swooning over him.

And the next day they play doll, they'll catch him holding the screen door for them even if it looks too heavy for him. He'd be hugging the crazy dog by the neck to keep it from barking at them. Then they'd smile and sigh "Ohh sweeeet". And he does this little tiny gentlemanly acts unconsciously early in his age not even knowing there's such a word ('gentleman'), and he drops his feeding bottle and the pups licks its nozzle. He'll just pick it up afterwards and put it straight back into his mouth while his big sister seeing it freaks out and calls mom. Of course the mom steps out chasing him co'z he runs and laughs while puppies encircles him. And he gets 25 kisses soon as he got caught. And mark my words, the very day the girls find out he's not around? They'll be looking and asking for him.

And what's so puzzling about is... when these spooky silent types grow up, you'd never thought they were the same spooky child you grew up with, or you once saw. You'd wonder how'd they grew up that way. Like how they grew into good looking sophisticated fine gentlemen that carry themselves well.   You call his name and he raises his head from a book, removes his spectacles, stands up tall and cool and look at you and smile and say "Hi how are you" real sincere yet so cool and quite puzzled thinking where he met you.

And you realize...right there and then.. he's the same spooky child you've known and loved ever since. And you feel wonderful. Because once again.. you get mesmerized.

Let's take a look at the case. This is a Tax case. Facts states that..

Lung Center of the Philippines is a non-stock and non-profit entity established by virtue of PD No. 1823. It is the registered owner of the land on which the Lung Center of the Philippines Hospital is erected. 

A big space in the ground floor of the hospital is being leased to private parties, for canteen and small store spaces, and to medical or professional practitioners who use the same as their private clinics. Also, a big portion on the right side of the hospital is being leased for commercial purposes to a private enterprise known as the Elliptical Orchids and Garden Center. 

When the City Assessor of Quezon City assessed both its land and hospital building for real property taxes, the Lung Center of the Philippines filed a claim for exemption on its averment that it is a charitable institution with a minimum of 60% of its hospital beds exclusively used for charity patients and that the major thrust of its hospital operation is to serve charity patients. 

The claim for exemption was denied, prompting a petition for the reversal of the resolution of the City Assessor with the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City, which denied the same. On appeal, the Central Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City affirmed the local board’s decision, finding that Lung Center of the Philippines is not a charitable institution and that its properties were not actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes. 

Hence, the present petition for review with averments that the Lung Center of the Philippines is a charitable institution under Section 28(3), Article VI of the Constitution, notwithstanding that it accepts paying patients and rents out portions of the hospital building to private individuals and enterprises.

ISSUE:

Is the Lung Center of the Philippines a charitable institution within the context of the Constitution, and therefore, exempt from real property tax?

RULING:

The Lung Center of the Philippines is a charitable institution. To determine whether an enterprise is a charitable institution or not, the elements which should be considered include the statute creating the enterprise, its corporate purposes, its constitution and by-laws, the methods of administration, the nature of the actual work performed, that character of the services rendered, the indefiniteness of the beneficiaries and the use and occupation of the properties. 

However, under the Constitution, in order to be entitled to exemption from real property tax, there must be clear and unequivocal proof that 

(1) it is a charitable institution and 

(2)its real properties are ACTUALLY,DIRECTLY and EXCLUSIVELY used for charitable purposes. 

While portions of the hospital are used for treatment of patients and the dispensation of medical services to them, whether paying or non-paying, other portions thereof are being leased to private individuals and enterprises. 

Exclusive is defined as possessed and enjoyed to the exclusion of others, debarred from participation or enjoyment. 

If real property is used for one or more commercial purposes, it is not exclusively used for the exempted purposes but is subject to taxation.

ABRA VALLEY COLLEGE INC. vs. AQUINO

This is an old taxation case which had been covered by the 1935 Constitution. 

Question:  Is tax exemption which is embraced in the words "Exclusively Used for Educational Purposes"  liberally construed?  

Answer:  YES.

Therefore: A reasonable emphasis can be made that the tax exemption may extend to facilities which are INCIDENTAL TO and REASONABLY NECESSARY for the accomplishment of the main purpose (which is to educate). 

Further Question: Can a ground floor of an educational institution (which is tax exempted), being used for commercial purpose and its second floor being used for residential purpose fall under said extension? 

Further Answer:  The residential issue may be qualified depending on who is residing. The commercial issue? NO.

FACTS:

Abra Valley College (a private school), located at Benguet, Abra, an educational corporation and institution of higher learning incorporated with the SEC filed a complaint with the Benguet provincial fiscal to annul and declare void the NOTICE OF SEIZURE and a NOTICE OF SALE of its lot and building by the municipal and provincial treasurers for non-payment of real estate taxes and its penalties. 

So a certain Paterno Mellare who probably was with Public Respondent AQUINO (sorry I didn’t read any further) who most probably (patay to, I’m inferring once again) are the municipal and provincial treasurers filed through counsel a motion to dismiss the complaint.

So what the Provincial Fiscal did was they filed a memorandum for the government where they opined that based on the evidence, the laws applicable, and previous court decisions and jurisprudence, the school building and the school lot used for educational purpose of Abra Valley College are exempted from payment of taxes. 

The trial court disagreed.  Lets try to look at the evidence and what they found out. 

You see what actually happened here was that Abra Valley College (AVC) was renting out the ground floor of its college building to Northern Marketing Corporation (NMC)  while the second floor thereof is used by the Director of the College for residential purposes.  So this is precisely the reason why the municipal and provincial treasurers served upon the College a “notice of seizure” and later a “notice of sale” due to the alleged failure of the College to pay real estate taxes and penalties thereon. 

So this falls under a case of a claim for tax exemption.  

ISSUE: 

Was the tax imposition on the College is violative of the Constitutional prohibition against taxation of religious, charitable, and educational entities?

Maybe we should rephrase the question. The question is, whether or not the lot and building in question are used exclusively for educational purpose?  E pinaparenta yung ground floor eh, ginawa namang residential yung second floor. Kaya siguro sinabe ng municipal and provincial treasurers “Pinaglololoko nyo kame, ok tataxan namen kayo, and pag di na kayo makabayad, we will seize that property, then we will sell it”  (again don’t quote me on that, para may istorya lang). 

RULING:

While the Court allows a more liberal and non-restrictive interpretation of the phrase “exclusively used for educational purposes,” reasonable emphasis has always been made that exemption extends to facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the main purposes. 

While the second floor’s use, as residence of the director, is incidental to education; the lease of the first floor cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered incidental to the purposes of education. 

The test of exemption from taxation is the use of the property for purposes mentioned in the Constitution. 

So there we go. Let's reiterate:  While the use of the second floor of the main building in the case at bar for residential purposes of the Director of the school and his family may find justification under the concept of INCIDENTAL USE, which is complimentary to the main or primary purpose which is educational, the lease of the first floor thereof to the Northern Marketing Corporation cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered incidental to the purpose of education.

So the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court ruling stating it correctly arrived at the conclusion that the school building as well as the lot where it is built, should be taxed. Not because of the second floor issue but of the first floor. 

However since it is only a portion of its premises is used for purpose of commerce, the high court directed that it is only fair that half of the assessed tax be returned to the school. 

CIR vs. YMCA

Rule:  Tax Exemption if claimed must be expressly granted in a statute stated in a language TOO CLEAR TO BE MISTAKEN. 

Private respondent YMCA, a  non-stock, non-profit institution which conducts various programs beneficial to the public pursuant to its religious, educational, and charitable objectives LEASES OUT a portion of its premises to small shop owners, like restaurants and canteen operators deriving substantial income from such. 

So seeing this, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) issued an assessment to private respondent (YMCA) for  Deficiencies on the following: 1. Income tax, 2. Expanded withholding taxes on rentals and professional fees and 3. Withholding tax on wages.   

YMCA opposed arguing that its rental income is not subject to tax mainly because of the provisions of Section 27 of the NIRC (National Internal Revenue Code) which provides that “civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operate exclusively for promotion of social welfare and those organized exclusively for pleasure, recreation and other non-profitable businesses SHALL NOT BE TAXED.” 

ISSUE:   Is the contention of YMCA tenable?

HELD:   NO.   Tax Exemptions are:

1. STRICTLY CONSTRUED:

Because taxes are the LIFEBLOOD of the nation. The court has always applied the Doctrine of Strict Interpretation in construing tax exemptions stated in the language of the law.

2. MANIFEST & UNMISTAKABLE: 

Furthermore, a claim of statutory exemption from taxation should be Manifest and Unmistakable from the language of the law on which it is based.

3. BASED ON LANGUAGE TOO CLEAR TO BE MISTAKEN: 

Thus the claimed exemption “must expressly be granted in a statute stated in a language TOO CLEAR TO BE MISTAKEN.”

YMCA loses this case.

(boy, that's as quickest as we can get)