Amendment of Section 12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court on Service Upon Foreign Private Juridical Entity

FIRST DIVISION [C.T.A. AC NO. 81. March 20, 2013.] CITY TREASURER OF MANILA , petitioner , vs . CHINA BANKING CORPORATION and the HON. JANSEN R. RODRIGUEZ, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 06, MANILA , respondents . RESOLUTION FABON-VICTORINO , J p : For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration dated January 20, 2013 filed by petitioner, praying to reverse the Decision dated December 18, 2012 which reads as follows: DcCIAa WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED , for lack of merit. Respondent Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 6, is hereby directed to effect the necessary correction in the dispositive portion of the assailed Resolution dated April 19, 2011 replacing second (2nd) quarter of 2006 with third (3rd) quarter of 2006. Petitioner claims that contrary to the ruling of the Court, despite the declaration of nullity of Ordinance Nos. 7988 and 8011, respondent is still liable to pay taxes under Section 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794 which remains valid and enforceable as part of the Revenue Code of Manila. Under the said provision, there shall be a tax on the gross receipts of businesses subject to excise, value-added or percentage taxes under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Further Article X, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution provides that "[E]ach government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local authority. Such taxes, fees and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments." Also the legal maxim that taxes are the lifeblood of the government is sufficient to justify the grant of the relief sought. For respondent, the subject motion is frivolous if not lacking in merit as it only draws strength from the mandate of Section 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7794, 1 which petitioner did not quote in its entirety for obvious reason. Section 21 of Tax Ordinance 7794 exempts all registered businesses in the City of Manila that are already paying taxes under Section 19 of the same Tax Ordinance No. 7794 such as respondent. That being the case, respondent is exempt from payment of the taxes under Section 21 of Tax Ordinance 7794. Evidently, there is nothing new in the argument of petitioner. The issue raised in the subject motion has been sufficiently addressed and discussed by the Court in the assailed Decision. In fine, there is no reason to disturb the finding and the ruling of the Court as stated in the assailed Decision of December 18, 2012. WHEREFORE , the Motion for Reconsideration dated January 20, 2013 filed by petitioner, is hereby DENIED , for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . HCIaDT (SGD.) ESPERANZA R. FABON-VICTORINO Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy, J., concurs. Footnotes 1. Comment (on petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated January 20, 2013) dated February 13, 2013, docket pp. 188-192.