CIR and Commissioner of Customs vs. Botelho Shipping Corp. & General Shipping Co., Inc. G.R. Nos. L-!"##L-! "##-#$ #$ %une , !"' FACTS: Reparations Commission of the Philippines sold to Botelho the vessel "M/S Maria Rosello" for the amount of P6,!,## The former li$e%ise sold to &eneral Shippin' the vessel "M/S &eneral (im" at the pri)e of P6,!*+,666#66# pon arrival at the port of Manila, the Bureau of Customs pla)ed the same under )ustod- and refus efused ed to 'ive ive due due )our )ourse se .to .to appl appli) i)at atio ions ns for for re'is e'istr trat atio ion n,, unle unless ss the the aforementioned sums of P01,011 and P0!0,20 3e paid as )ompensatin' ta4# The 3u-ers su3se5uentl- led %ith the CTA their respe)tive petitions for revie%# Pendin' the )ase, Repu3li) A)t 7o# 18! amended Repu3li) A)t 7o# +! 9 the ri'inal Reparations A)t, under %hi)h the aforementioned )ontra)ts %ith the Bu-ers had 3een e4e)uted e4e)uted 9 3- e4empti e4emptin' n' 3u-ers 3u-ers of reparat reparations ions 'oods a)5uired a)5uired from from the Commission, from lia3ilit- for the )ompensatin' ta4#
;nvo$in' .se)tion 28 of the RA 18!, the Bu-ers applied, for the renovation of their utili
.n appeal, the C;R and CC maintain that su)h proviso should not 3e applied retroa)tivel-, upon the 'round that a ta4 e4emption must 3e )lear and e4pli)it= that there is no e4press provision for the retroa)tivit- of the e4emption, esta3lished 3Repu3li) A)t 7o# 18!, from the )ompensatin' ta4= that the favora3le provisions, %hi)h are referred to in se)tion 28 thereof, )annot in)lude the e4emption from )ompensa )ompensatin' tin' ta4= and, that Con'res Con'ress s )ould )ould not have intended intended an- retroa retroa)tive )tive e4em e4empt ptio ion, n, )ons )onsid ider erin in' ' that that the the resul esultt ther thereo eoff %oul %ould d 3e pre> pre>ud udi) i)ia iall to the the &overnment#
;SS?: @hether or not the ta4 e4emption )an 3e applied retroa)tivel-
?(: ?S# The inherent %ea$ness of the last 'round 3e)omes manifest %hen %e )onsider that, if true, there )ould 3e no ta4 e4emption e4emption of an- $ind %hatsoever, even if Con'ress should %ish to )reate one, 3e)ause ever- su)h e4emption implies a %aiver of the ri'ht to )olle)t %hat other%ise %ould 3e due to the &overnment, and, in this this sens sense, e, is pre> pre>ud udi) i)ia iall ther theret eto# o# ;t mama- not not 3e amis amiss s to add add that that no ta4 ta4 e4emption 9 li$e an- other le'al e4emption or e4)eption 9 is 'iven %ithout an-
reason therefor# ;n mu)h the same %a- as other statutor- )ommands, its avo%ed purpose is some pu3li) 3enet or interest, %hi)h the la%Dma$in' 3od- )onsiders suE)ient to oset the monetar- loss entitled in the 'rant of the e4emption# ;ndeed, se)tion 28 of Repu3li) A)t 7o# 18! e4a)ts a valua3le )onsideration for the retroa)tivit- of its favora3le provisions, namel-, the voluntar- assumption, 3- the endDuser %ho 3ou'ht reparations 'oods prior to Gune +, +!6+ of "all the ne% o3li'ations provided for in" said A)t#
Furthermore, Se)tion +0 of the (a% on Reparations, as amended, e4empts from the )ompensatin' ta4, not parti)ular persons, 3ut persons 3elon'in' to a parti)ular )lass# ;ndeed, appellants do not assail the )onstitutionalit- of said se)tion +0, insofar as it 'rants e4emptions to endDusers %ho, after the approval of Repu3li) A)t 7o# 18!, on Gune +, +!6+, pur)hased reparations 'oods pro)ured 3- the Commission# From the vie%point of Constitutional (a%, espe)iall- the e5ual prote)tion )lause, there is no dieren)e 3et%een the 'rant of e4emption to said endDusers, and the e4tension of the 'rant to those %hose )ontra)ts of pur)hase and sale mere made 3efore said date, under Repu3li) A)t 7o# +!#
