Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals

THIRTEENTH DIVISION [CA-G.R. SP No. 35512. March 31, 1995.] (C.T.A. Case No. 5015) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs . COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND FORTUNE TOBACCO CORP. , respondents . D E C I S I O N TORRES, JR. , J p : Every now and then, We have to come to grips in resolving whether due process as constitutionally mandated had been observed. The case at bench is unique. It is alleged that a government agency failed to observe this constitutional injunction of due process. Whether this "sporting idea of fair play" has been observed is the issue before Us. Challenged in this petition for review instituted by petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue is the decision dated August 10, 1994 of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 5015 entitled "Fortune Tobacco Corporation vs. Liwayway Vinzons-Chato, in her capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue", the dispositive portion of which reads: 1 "WHEREFORE, Revenue MemorandumCircularNo.37-93 reclassifying the brands of cigarettes, viz: 'HOPE', 'MORE', and 'CHAMPION' being manufactured by FortuneTobaccoCorporation as locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand subject to the 55% ad valorem tax on cigarette is found to be defective, invalid and unenforceable, such that when R.A.7654 took effect on July 3, 1993, the brands in question were not CURRENTLY CLASSIFIED AND TAXES at 55% pursuant to Section 1142 (c)(1) of the TaxCode, as amended by R.A.No.7654 and were therefore still classified as other locally manufactured cigarettes and taxes at 45% or 20% as the case may be. Accordingly, the deficiency ad valorem tax assessment issued on petitioner FortuneTobacco Corporation in the amount of P9,598,334.00, exclusive of surcharge and interest, is hereby cancelled for lack of legal basis. Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby enjoined from collecting the deficiency tax assessment made and issued on petitioner in relation to the implementation of RMCNo.37-93. SO ORDERED." The antecedents as disclosed by the records are as follows: Private respondent Fortune Tobacco Corporation is a corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to law which is principally engaged in the manufacture of cigarettes of various brands, among which are HOPE LUXURY M. KING, HOPE LUXURY M. 100's, MORE PREMIUM INTERNATIONAL, MORE PREMIUM M. 100's, CHAMPION M. KING and CHAMPION LIGHTS. The Philippine Patent Office issued a certification on July 24, 1986 that the following trademarks for cigarettes are registered in the name of Fortune Tobacco Corporation, to wit: TRADEMARK CERT. OF REG.'N. ISSUED Champion 15949 Nov. 2, 1970 Hope 16927 Oct. 18, 1971 More 20077 Aug. 17, 1978 On January 6, 1987, the then Commissioner of Internal Revenue Bienvenido A. Tan, Jr. wrote a letter addressed to the Deputy Minister Ramon Diaz of the Presidential Commission of Good Government stating that "the initial position of this Office classified the aforesaid brands (Champion, Hope and More) as foreign brands since the same are listed in the current World Tobacco Directory as belonging to foreign companies. Later, however, Fortune Tobacco changed the names of Hope to Hope Luxury and More to Premium More, thereby removing the said brands from the foreign brand category. Proof was also submitted to this Bureau that Champion was an original Fortune Tobacco Corporation register and therefore a local brand". Since the institution of Executive Order No. 22 on June 23, 1986, the ad valorem tax rate on these cigarettes, which classified and taxed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (B.I.R., for brevity) as locally manufactured cigarettes no bearing foreign brand, are as follows: BRAND AD VALOREM TAX RATE E.O. 22 and E.O. 273 RA6956 06-23-86 07-25-87 06-18-90 07-01-86 01-01-88 07-05-90 Hope Luxury M. 100's Sec. 142, (c), (2) 40% 45% Hope Luxury M. King Sec. 142, (c), (2) 40% 45% More Premium M. 100's Sec. 142, (c), (2) 40% 45% More Premium International Sec. 142, (c), (2) 40% 45% Champion Int'l. M. 100's Sec. 142, (c), (2) 40% 45% Champion M. 100's Sec. 142, (c), (2) 40% 45% Champion M. King Sec. 142, (c), last par. 15% 20% Champion Lights Sec. 142, (c), last par. 15% 20% On June 10, 1993, the bill which became Republic Act No. 7654 was enacted by Congress. On June 14, 1993, the President of the Philippines signed the bill into law. After fifteen (15) days from its publication on June 17, 1993, R.A. No. 7654 took effect on July 3, 1993. In the meantime, on July 1, 1993, petitioner Bureau of Internal Revenue issued a Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 37-93 (RMC 37-93), the whole text of which is herein reproduced, to wit: 2 "REPUBLIKA NG PILIPINAS KAGAWARAN NG PANANALAPI KAWANIHAN NG RENTAS INTERNAS July 1, 1993 REVENUE MEMORANDUMCIRCULARNO.37-93 SUBJECT : Reclassification of Cigarettes Subject to Excise Tax TO : All Internal Revenue Officers and Others Concerned In view of the issues raised on whether "HOPE" "MORE" and "CHAMPION" cigarettes which are locally manufactured are appropriately considered as locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand, this Office is compelled to review the previous ruling on the matter. Section 142 (c) (1) National InternalRevenueCode, as amended by R.A.No.6956, provides: 'On locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand, fifty-five percent (55%) Provided, that this rate shall apply regardless of whether or not the right to use on title to the foreign brand was sold or transferred by its owner to the local manufacturer. Whenever it has to be determined whether or not a cigarettes bears a foreign brand, the listing of brands manufactured in foreign countries appearing in the current World Tobacco Directory shall govern. Under the foregoing, the test for imposition of the 55% ad valorem tax on cigarettes is that the locally manufactured cigarettes bear a foreign brand regardless of whether or not the right to use or title to the foreign brand was sold or transferred by its owner to the local manufacturer. The brand must be originally owned by a foreign manufacturing or producer. If ownership of the cigarette brand is, however, not definitely determinable, ". . . the listing of brands manufactured in foreign countries appearing in the current World Tobacco Directory shall govern. . . ." Since there is no showing who among the above-listed manufacturers of the cigarettes bearing the said brands are the real owner/s thereof, then it follows that the same shall be considered foreign brand for purposes of determining the ad valorem tax, pursuant to Section 142 of the National InternalRevenueCode. As held in BIR RulingNo.410-88, dated August 24, 1988, "in cases where it cannot be established or there is dearth of evidence as to whether a brand is foreign or not resort to the World Tobacco Directory should be made". In view of the foregoing, the aforesaid brands of cigarettes, viz: 'HOPE', 'MORE', and 'CHAMPION' being manufactured by FortuneTobacco Corporation are hereby considered locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand subject to the 55% ad valorem tax on cigarettes. Any ruling inconsistent herewith is revoked or modified accordingly. SGD. LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO Commissioner" At about 17:50 hours on July 2, 1993, Friday, Deputy Commissioner Victor A. Deoferio, Jr. telefaxed a copy of RMC 37-93 to the factory of the private respondent at Parang, Marikina. The telefaxed copy aforesaid was not addressed to anyone in particular. On July 3, 1993, Republic Act No. 6543, amending Section 142 (c) (1) of the Tax Code, took effect, the pertinent portion of which reads: SEC. 142. Cigar and Cigarettes . xxx xxx xxx (c). Cigarettes packed by machine . There shall be levied, assessed and collected on cigarettes packed by machine a tax at the rates prescribed below based on the constructive manufacturer's wholesale price on the actual manufacturer's wholesale price whichever is higher: (1). On locally manufactured cigarettes which are currently classified and tax at fifty-five percent (55%) provided that the minimum tax shall not be less than Five Pesos (P5.00) per pack. (2). On other locally manufactured cigarettes, forty-five percent (45%) provided that the minimum tax shall not be less than Three Pesos (P3.00) per pack. xxx xxx xxx When the registered manufacturer's wholesale price or the actual manufacturer's wholesale price whichever is higher of existing brands of cigarettes, including the amounts intended to cover the taxes, of cigarettes packed in twenties does not exceed Four Pesos and Eighty Centavos (P4.80) per pack, the rate shall be twenty percent (20%). On July 15, 1993, private respondent received a certified xerox copy of RMC No. 37-93 by ordinary mail. On July 20, 1993, private respondent, in a letter dated July 19, 1993, requested for a review, reconsideration and recall of RMC No. 37-93 before the Appellate Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue 3 which was, however, denied on July 29, 1993. 4 On July 30, 1993, petitioner sent an assessment letter to the private respondent assessing the ad valorem tax deficiency of the latter in the amount of P9,598,334.00. 5 On August 3, 1993, private respondent filed a petition for review before the respondent Court of Tax Appeals. 6 Subsequently, an amended petition for review was filed by private respondent on August 12, 1993. 7 On August 27, 1993, petitioner filed an answer thereto. 8 On August 10, 1994, the respondent Court of Tax Appeals rendered the assailed decision, in favor of the private respondent and against the petitioner, stating inter alia that Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 37-93 was defective, invalid and unenforceable, hence, cancelling for lack of legal basis the deficiency ad valorem tax assessment in the amount of P9,598,334.00. 9 On August 26, 1994, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration 10 to which an opposition thereto was filed by the private respondent. On October 11, 1994, the respondent Court of Tax Appeals issued a resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration, to wit: 11 "In view of all the foregoing, We find no cogent reason to depart from our decision in the instant case promulgated on August 10, 1994. Respondents motion for reconsideration is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED." Hence, the instant petition for review. Petitioner raised the following assignment of errors allegedly committed by the respondent court, to wit: I RMC37-93 IS RULING OR OPINION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE INTERPRETING THE PROVISION OF THE TAXCODE. II PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF RMC37-93 ON JULY 2, 1993. III BEING AN INTERPRETATIVE RULING OR OPINION, THE PUBLICATION OF RMC37-93, FILING OF COPIES THEREOF WITH THE UP LAW CENTER AND PRIOR HEARING ARE NOT NECESSARY TO ITS VALIDITY, EFFECTIVITY AND ENFORCEABILITY. IV MERE ISSUANCE OF RMC37-93 DOES NOT AMOUNT TO DEPRIVATION OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. V RMC37-93 IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY SINCE IT APPLIES TO ALL LOCALLY MANUFACTURED CIGARETTES SIMILARLY SITUATED AS "HOPE", "MORE", AND "CHAMPION" CIGARETTES. VI THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE TAX COURT'S FINDING OF A LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO ADOPT AS PART OF R.A.7654, AMENDING SECTION 142 OF THE TAXCODE, THE CLASSIFICATION OF CIGARETTES EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THE APPROVAL OF SAID ACT. VII THE ASSESSMENT FOR DEFICIENCY AD VALOREM TAX IS PRESUMED CORRECT ON THE FACTUAL ASPECT. At the outset, it must be emphasized that the petition did not dispute the findings of facts of the respondent tax court, thus, the veracity of the circumstances/events which led to the issuance of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 37-93 is undisputed. As it is , the only issue which is decisive for our resolution is "whether or not the respondent tax court erred in declaring RMC No. 37-93 as defective, invalid and unenforceable?" Petitioner maintains that the respondent tax court erred in declaring RMC No. 37-93 as void it appearing that it was merely an opinion or ruling of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue which interpreted the provisions of Section 142 (c) (1) of the Tax Code, as amended by R.A. 6956. Furthermore, it was not issued by the Secretary of Finance so it can be considered under the category of Rules and Regulations normally issued for the enforcement of the Tax Code. As such, RMC No. 37-93 need not be published as enunciated in La Suerte Cigar & Cigarette Factory vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. (134 SCRA 29) which stated that Revenue Memorandum Circulars need not be published, citing Section 79 (b) of the Revised Administrative Code, to wit: "Chiefs of bureaus or offices, may however, be authorized to promulgate circulars or information or instructions for the government of the officers and employees in the interior administration of the business of each bureau or office, and in such case said circular shall not be required to be published." An assiduous scrutiny of RMC. No. 37-93, however negates petitioner's contention that it was merely an opinion or ruling of the Commissioner interpreting the provisions of the Tax Code. In synthesis, We agree with the Court of Tax Appeals when it stated that "No matter how said circular may be regarded, the legal provisions which have bearing on the issue were comprehensively discussed by petitioner in its pleading to which this Court concurs, thus: The due process clause of the Conspankastitution (Section 1, Article III, Bill of Rights) prohibits the taking of property without due process of law. The issuance of RMCNo.37-93 amount to depriving petitioner of property without complying with the requirements for procedural and substantive due process namely, notice, prior hearing, submission of evidence and opportunity to controvert. Book VII entitled 'Administrative Procedure' of the AdministrativeCodeof 1987 (AC '87), which took effect on November 24, 1989, prescribes the requirements for the validity and effectivity of any rule issued by any Government agency; Section 1 provides that 't(his) Book shall be applicable to all agencies as defined in the next succeeding section, except the Congress, the Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, military establishment . . ., the Board of Pardons and Paroles, and state universities and colleges. 'Agency' is defined in Section 2, viz: '(1) 'Agency' includes any department, bureau, office, commission, authority or officer of the National Government authorized by law of executive order to make rules, issue licenses, grant rights or privileges, and adjudicate cases; . . ." The Bureau of Internal Revenue, as agency of the National Government, is covered by Book II, Chapter 4, Sec. 18 of AC '87 and therefore, is obliged to abide by its provisions concerning the issuance, publication and effectivity of any rule: 'Rule' is also defined in Section 2, viz: '(2) 'Rule' means any agency statement of general applicability that implements or interprets a law, fixes and describes the procedure in, or practice requirements of, an agency, including its regulations. The term internal administration or management of an agency not affecting the rights of, or procedure available to, the public,' (Emphasis supplied); Section 9, Chapter 2, Book VII of the AC '87 requires that any proposed rule be first publicized and submitted to a hearing to afford interested parties the opportunity to express their views or opposition thereto before its adoption. Sec. 9. Public Participation . (1) If not otherwise required by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule. (2) . . . (3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be observed.; If opposed, the rules on contested cases require notice and hearing to give all interested parties the opportunity to submit evidence and arguments on all issues concerning the proposed rule (Section 11, Chapter 3, Book VII); The AC '87 likewise dictates that ' (e)very agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by it . . .' (paragraph [1]., Section 3) and that '(i) n addition to other rule-making requirements provided by law not inconsistent with this Book, each rule shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of filing . . .' (Section 4); As declared in Section 4, the administrative procedures mandated by Book VII of the AC '87 are in addition to other rule-making requirements not inconsistent therewith. Insofar as internal revenue tax rules and regulations are concerned, the additional requirements of notice, publication and effectivity are prescribed in Revenue Memorandum Circular(RMC)No.20-86, dated July 24, 1986 entitled: Notice, publication and effectivity of internal revenue tax rules and regulations.' (Exhibit 'L'), with the avowed purpose 'that there shall be just enforcement of rules and regulations, in conformity with the said basic elements of due process'." We cannot be oblivious to the fact that the B.I.R. circular aforestated will affect the vested rights of the parties-in-interest and its results are too encompassing for it will surely send shock waves to the tobacco industry. The designation of the Revenue Memorandum Circular is of no moment for what is controlling is its contents and implications to the public-at-large. This Court is of the opinion that circulars or rulings of this nature should be published specially if it deals with a novel question on which there has been no previously published ruling or decision; or are of general interest; or if it revokes, amends, or in any other way affect a previously published ruling it appearing that the subject of RMC No. 37-93 did not involve matters relating to the internal administration of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, publication, as required by the rules, is necessary. Significantly, Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 20-86 issued by the Commissioner on July 24, 1986 to all internal revenue officers regarding the need of a notice, publication for the effectivity of internal revenue rules and regulations, the pertinent portion of which is hereinbelow quoted: "RMCNo.10-86 Effectivity of Internal Revenue Rules and Regulations It has been observed that one of the problem areas bearing on compliance with InternalRevenueTax rules and regulations is lack or insufficiency of due notice to the tax paying public. Unless there is due notice, due compliance therewith may not be reasonably expected. And most importantly, their strict enforcement could possibly suffer from legal infirmity in the light of the constitutional provision on 'due process of law' and the essence of the CivilCode provision concerning effectivity of laws, whereby due notice is a basic requirement (Sec. 1, Art. IV, Constitution; Art. 2, NewCivilCode). In order that there shall be a just enforcement of rules and regulations, in conformity with the basic element of due process, the following procedures are hereby prescribed for the drafting, issuance and implementation of the said Revenue Tax Issuances: (1). This Circular shall apply only to (a) Revenue Regulations; (b) Revenue audit Memorandum Orders; and (c) Revenue Memorandum Circulars and Revenue Memorandum Orders bearing on internal revenue tax rules and regulations. (2). Except when the law otherwise expressly provides, the aforesaid internal revenue tax issuances shall not begin to be operative until after due notice thereof may be fairly presumed. Due notice of the said issuances may be fairly presumed only after the following procedures have been taken: xxx xxx xxx (5). Strict compliance with the foregoing procedures is enjoined." The above-stated memorandum recognizes the need or even urgency of notice and publication of its tax rules and regulations, including memorandum circulars (Sec. 1 [c]), in order to appraise the general public of its effects to their lives and responsibilities. The need for publication was further emphasized with the enactment of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the "Administrative Code of 1987" which required that "every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by it and that it shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of filing unless a different date is fixed by law, or specified in the rule . . ." (Section 3 and 4, Chapter 2, Book VII on Administrative Procedures). Obviously, there was total absence publication of RMC No. 37-93 as contemplated by RMC 20-86 and Chapter 2, Book VII of the 1987 Administrative Code. We could hardly fathom how a notice addressed to no one in particular the private respondent's office will qualify as publication within the context of basic "due process of Law". Without casting aspersion on the petitioner, the notice which did not name the responsible officer of the private respondent is at most pro forma . We have to state this for the simple reason that private respondent as a corporation is merely an artificial being and as such can act only through agents, i. e. its officers. Admittedly, RMC No. 37-93 is not merely an interpretative ruling. Consequently, the requirements of notice and opportunity to be heard before any one can be lawfully be deprived of his rights should be complied with. Due process is guaranteed by the Constitution and extends to administrative proceedings. The need for notice and opportunity to be heard is the heart of procedural due process, be it judicial or administrative proceedings. It is thus an unyielding principle in our Constitutional system observed through decades of constant use that "Due process is a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry , and renders judgment only after trial. The meaning is, that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities, under the protection of the general rules which govern society (4 Wheaton, U.S., 518, 581). 'Due process of law' contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, affecting one's person or property. . . . Arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the persons and property of the citizens, is not law." 12 This constitutional precept had been invoked many times over as judicial testimonial to its validity. And so it is that 'the Court has emphasized the imperative necessity for administrative agencies to observe the elementary rules of due process clause of the Constitution than that which requires notice and opportunity to be heard before any person can be lawfully deprived of his rights". 13 Thus, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should have given the private respondent the right to a hearing to enable it to present its own case and submit evidence to counter the Commissioner's findings that their products are subject to a 55% ad valorem tax. Moreover, it is incumbent upon the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, to promulgate all needful rules and regulations for the effective enforcement of the provisions of the Tax code. 14 The power to make regulations in not the power legislate in the true sense, and under the guise of regulation, legislation may not be enacted. The statute which is being administered may not be altered or added to by the exercise of the power to make regulations thereunder. 15 We view the circumstances surrounding the issuance of RMC 37-93 by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue as one done with undue haste which took a route less travelled by and characterized by innate partiality. This, to our mind amounts to "hostile discrimination" against private respondent. It is in the words of Colley "Aimed at undue favor and individual or class privilege, on the one hand, and at hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality, on the other. It seeds an equality of treatment of all persons, even though all enjoy the protection of due process." 16 It is on record that prior to the issuance of RMC 37-93 the ad valorem tax of "HOPE, MORE and CHAMPION" was 20-45% pursuant to Section 142 (b) (2) of the Tax Code. It has been that way until the issuance of RMC 37-93 on July 2, 1993. Coincidentally, a bill in Congress was being considered amending the provisions of Section 142 of the Tax Code stating inter alia, that "on locally manufactured cigarettes which are currently classified and taxed at fifty-five percent (55%) or the exportation of which is not authorized by contract or otherwise, fifty-five percent (55%) provided that the minimum tax shall not be less than Five Pesos per pack." (Underscoring supplied) This bill calendared as Republic Act No. 7654 was approved by the House of Representatives and the Senate on June 10, 1993 and signed by the President of the Philippines on June 14, 1993. Published on June 17, 1993, it took effect fifteen (15) days thereafter on July 3, 1993. On July 2, 1993 or a day before the effectivity of R.A. No. 7654, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue neatly issued RMC No. 37-93 re-classifying "HOPE, MORE and CHAMPION" as locally manufactured cigarettes bearing foreign brand, thereby, increasing the ad valorem tax to 55%. By virtue thereof, the re-classification of "HOPE, MORE and CHAMPION" at 55% ad valorem tax will make the said tobacco products fall under the Section 142 (c) (1), as amended by R.A. No. 7654, which provides an ad valorem tax of 55% or Five Pesos, whichever is higher, on all locally manufactured cigarettes currently classified and taxed at fifty-five percent (55%). This Court considers the immediate reclassification of "HOPE, MORE and CHAMPION" as a device of skirting the law and the Commissioner will be hard-put to change the classification of the cigarettes adverted to during the intervening period between the approval of R.A. 7654 on June 10, 1993 and its effectivity on July 3, 1993 for it would appear to be a "midnight decree". This will in the words of Colbert "consists in so plucking the goose to obtain the largest amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing (Jean Baptiste Covert [1619-83]). We are not persuaded by petitioner's allegation that the issuance of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 37-39 did not violate the "equal protection clause". We find the respondent tax court's position that RMC No. 37-93 as discriminatory to be proper. Contrary to petitioner's contention, RMC No. 37-93 applies only to the three cigarette brands "HOPE, MORE and CHAMPION" manufactured by the private respondent. It was not made to apply to other products similarly situated which were manufactured by the private respondent and other cigarette manufacturers on the same footing. The non-inclusion of other cigarette brands similarly treated was justified by the Commissioner in a hearing conducted by the House Committee on Ways and Means and in the instant petition, petitioner manifested: 17 "Thus, it was impossible to actually classify as locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand all other cigarette brands similarly situated as 'Hope', 'More', and 'Champion' cigarettes because of the lack of time as Republic ActNo.7654, amending Section 142 (c) (1) of the TaxCode, was about to take effect on July 3, 1993 doing away with the distinction between foreign and local brands of cigarettes for ad valorem tax purposes. The lack of time and the imminent effectivity of R.A.7654 were circumstances beyond the control of petitioner. There was, therefore, no intent to apply RMC37-93 only to 'Hope', 'More' and 'Champion' cigarettes." (Emphasis supplied) We take it that the failure of the RMC 37-93 to include other cigarette brands similarly situated (those likewise listed under the World Tobacco Directory) violated no doubt the equal protection clause as guaranteed by the Constitution. Uniformity means that all property belonging to the same class shall be taxed alike. 18 Where property/things similarly situated are differently treated, the principle that there should be equality only among equals is set at naught. Strangely, no assessment notice was even served upon other cigarette products similarly situated while herein private respondent was assessed a tax deficiency of P9,598,334.00. This is palpable discrimination. As stated earlier, the decisive issue before Us is "whether or not the respondent tax court erred in declaring RMC No. 37-93 as defective, invalid and unenforceable", thus abbreviating to a considerable degree the resolution of the other collateral issues. We also realize that the case at bench presents polycentric issues issues characterized not only by their technical complexity, but by their impact on large and diverse groups of people, far beyond the vision of the parties immediately represented at bar. Nevertheless, this Court has to face and solve the issue at hand with the least delay consistent with justice and fair-play. In resume, We find no plausible reason to disturb the findings of the Court of Tax Appeals. As stated in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Tax Appeals "This Court will not set aside the conclusion reached by an agency such as the Court of Tax Appeals which is, by the very nature of its function, dedicated exclusively to the study and consideration of tax problems and has necessarily developed an expertise on the subject unless there has been abuse of improvident exercise of authority." 19 In synthesis, We find no abuse of discretion, much less grave, on the part of the respondent tax court in ruling that RMC NO. 37-93 is defective, invalid and unenforceable. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING PREMISES, the instant petition for review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The decision dated August 10, 1994 and the resolution dated October 11, 1994 of the respondent Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 5015 are hereby AFFIRMED in all respects. No costs. IT IS SO ORDERED. Ibay-Somera and Vasquez , Jr ., JJ ., concur. Footnotes 1. Decision, Rollo, pages 48-93. 2. Memorandum, Rollo, pages 142-143. 3. Letter, Rollo, pages 157-187. 4. Letter, Rollo, pages 145-148. 5. Letter, Rollo, page 280. 6. Petition, Rollo, pages 106-139. 7. Amended Petition, Rollo, pages 232-279. 8. Answer, Rollo, pages 282-290. 9. Decision, Rollo, pages 48-93. 10. Motion, Rollo, pages 291-311. 11. Resolution, Rollo, pages 94-105. 12. Lopez vs. Director of Lands, 47 Phil. 23. 13. Paterok vs. Bureau of Customs, G.R. Nos. 90660-61, January 21, 1991, citing Cebu Stevedoring Co., Inc. vs. Regional Director, 168 SCRA 315. 14. Section 245, National Internal Revenue Code. 15. 42 Am. Jur. 428. 16. Constitutional Limitations, 824-825. 17. Petition, Rollo, page 37. 18. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, vs. Lingayen Gulf, G.R. No. 23771, August 4, 1988. 19. G.R. No. 61509, April 19, 1988 citing Reyes vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 24 SCRA 198.