Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Rizal Commercial Banking Corp.

FIRST DIVISION [CA-G.R. SP No. 59524. February 19, 2004.] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs . RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION , respondent . D E C I S I O N DACUDAO , J p : This Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) which ordered the respondent to refund or issue a tax credit certificate in the reduced amount of P797,929.70 representing overpaid Gross Receipts Tax (GRT) payment for the four quarters of 1995; and its Resolution 2 denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration thereon. As found by the CTA, 3 hereunder are the material operative facts of the case: "Petitioner (RCBC) is a corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of Philippine laws and is engaged in general banking business. "During the year 1995, petitioner pursuant to Section 119 of the Tax Code imposing a tax on gross receipts derived from sources within the Philippines by all banks and non-bank financial intermediaries, filed its Quarterly Percentage Tax Return detailed as follows: "Exhibit Date Filed Period Covered Gross Receipts Tax Paid "A. April 20, 1995 Jan.March 1995 P541,537,248.06 P24,083,728.50 "B. July 20, 1995 Apr.June 1995 850,678,408.12 39,799,657.71 "C. Oct. 20, 1995 JulySept. 1995 789,957,154.13 36,938,561.29 "D. Jan. 22, 1996 Oct.Dec. 1995 755,339,549.73 35,175,811.39 "TOTAL: P2,937,512,360.04 P135,997,738.89 ============ ========== "Part of petitioner's gross receipts subjected to the gross receipts tax included interest income or yield derived from passive investments amounting to P353,105,103.33 (Exh. F), inclusive of the 20% final withholding tax. Petitioner, citing this Court's decision, this Court's decision in CTA Case No. 4720 entitled " Asian Bank Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue " promulgated last January 30, 1996, where We ruled that the 20% final withholding tax on interest income should not form part of taxable gross receipts, it filed on April 16, 1997 a claim for refund with the Bureau of Internal Revenue of its overpaid gross receipts tax for the year 1995 in the amount of P3,531,051.03 (Exh. E), computed as follows: DHITCc "Gross receipts derived from passive investment subjected to the final tax P353,105,103.33 x 20% "20% Final Tax Withheld at Source P70,621,020.66 x 5% "Overpaid 5% Gross Receipt Tax P3,531,051.03 "The following day, that is, on April 17, 1997, the instant Petition for Review was filed in order to toll the running of the two-year prescriptive period. "In his Answer, respondent (BIR Commissioner) claimed by way of Special and Affirmative Defenses that: "6. Petitioner has no clear right to a refund "7. In an action for refund of taxes, it is incumbent upon the taxpayer to show that the taxes paid were erroneously or illegally collected. Failure to meet this burden is fatal to the action for refund. In the instant case, petitioner has not shown any evidence that the tax claimed was erroneously or illegally collected. "8. Moreover, as a claim for refund partakes of the nature of an exemption, it cannot be allowed unless granted in the most explicit and categorical language," 4 On January 26, 2000, the CTA gave judgment, the dispositive portion whereof states: "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the Respondent to REFUND or ISSUE a tax credit certificate in due reduced amount of P797,929.70 representing overpaid GRT payment for the four quarters of 1995. The remaining amount claimed is DENIED from insufficiency of evidence." "SO ORDERED. "(SGD.) RAMON O. DE VEYRA "Associate Judge "WE CONCUR: "(SGD.) ERNESTO D. ACOSTA "Presiding Judge "(Dissenting) "(SGD.) AMANCIO Q. SAGA "Associate Judge." 5 The Court of Tax Appeals ruled that the 20% final withholding tax should not form part of the taxable gross receipts in computing the 5% GRT, following its ruling in " Asian Bank Corporation v . Commissioner of Internal Revenue ," 6 which was upheld by the Court of in " Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Citytrust Investment Philippines ." 7 The CTA in its decision cited the case of " Asian Bank Corporation v . Commissioner of Internal Revenue ," where the CTA declared that: "We agree with the petitioner that the 20% final withholding tax on its interact income should not form part of its taxable gross receipts. xxx xxx xxx "This conclusion is in accord with the interpretation of the Supreme Court in the case entitled Collector of Internal Revenue vs . Manila Jockey Club , 108 Phil. 821, as quoted by this Court in disposing of a similar issue in the case entitled Compania Maritima vs . Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue , CTA Case No. 1426 dated November 14, 1996, thus: 'In the second place, the highest tribunal of the land interpreted the term; 'gross receipts' to mean all receipts of a taxpayer excluding those which have been especially earmarked by law or regulation for the government or some person other than the taxpayer.' 8 In amplification of the foregoing conclusion the CTA declared that: "In fact this aforequoted ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in the case entitled ' Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Citytrust Investment Philippines ' CA-G.R. SP No. 52707, dated August 17, 1999 when it ruled, thus: EScIAa 'Accordingly, the 20% final tax withheld against the respondent's passive income was already remitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue for the corresponding year that the same was actually withheld and considered final withholding taxes under Section 50 of the same code. Indubitably, to include the same to the Respondent's gross receipts for the year 1994 would be to tax twice the passive income derived by the Respondent for the said year, which would constitute double taxation anathema to our taxation laws.'" 9 However, in the said CTA decision, Associate Judge Amancio Q. Saga dissented, stating that: "Note that in the Asian Bank case, said bank was being assessed for deficiency gross receipts tax of 5% for taxable year 1986 which at the time the aforequoted Section 4(e) of Revenue Regulations No. 12-80 had already been amended, superseded and omitted in the amendatory Revenue Regulations No. 17-84 dated October 12, 1984. In other words, the citation of Section 4(e) of Revenue Regulations No. 12-80 by Petitioner's counsel was erroneous in the sense that it misled this Court to adopt Petitioner's legal basis. The legal basis that should have been cited is Section 8 (c) of Revenue Regulation 12-80 which became Section 7 (c) of Revenue Regulations No. 17-84 which provides, thus: 'Section 8. . . . '(c) If the receipt of the above-mentioned items of income are financial institutions, the same shall be included as part of the tax base upon which the gross receipts tax is imposed.' "Petitioner's counsel purposely did not cite said section because certainly it won't be able to get a refund or tax credit for the alleged overpaid gross receipts tax for obvious reasons. Section 4 (e) of Revenue Regulations No. 12-80, as worded, is not a computation which is determinative of the amount to be used as basis of the 5% gross receipts tax. Rather, said section is reflective of the method of accounting being adopted by the taxpayer, such as the cash receipts and disbursement method or the accrual method of accounting. Said methods of accounting comprise a set of rules for determining when and how to report income and deduction ( Consolidated Mines, Inc . vs . Court of Tax Appeals , L-18843, August 29, 1974). xxx xxx xxx "By quoting a superseded revenue regulation, Petitioner in the Asian Bank case, led this Court to believe that indeed the basis of the gross receipts tax is total gross receipts exclusive of the 20% final withholding tax deducted and withheld under Section 50 (a) of the Tax Code. Section 7 (c) of the Revenue Regulations No. 17-84 clearly and categorically provides that the basis of such tax is inclusive of the final withholding tax." 10 On February 9, 2000, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration 11 thereon considering that the Court of Appeals has reversed the Asian Bank case on which respondent bank anchors its claim for refund. The Court of Appeals in overturning the CTA ruling held that: "It is true that Revenue Regulation No. 12-80 provides that the gross receipts tax on banks and other financial institutions should be based on all items of income actually received. Actual receipt here is used in opposition to mere accrual. Accrued income refers to income already earned but not yet received ( Rep . v . Tian Teng Sons & Co ., 16 SCRA 584). "But receipt may be actual or constructive. . . . Moreover, taxation-income may be received by the taxpayer himself or by someone authorized to receive it for him (Art. 532, Civil Code). The 20% final tax withheld from interest income of banks and other similar institutions is not income that they have not received; it simply withheld from them and paid to the government for their benefit. Thus the 20% income tax withheld from the interest income is, in fact, money of the taxpayer bank but paid by the payor to the government in satisfaction of the bank's obligation to pay the tax. Hence the withholding of the said tax and its payment to the government is for its benefit." 12 Via a resolution 13 dated June 13, 2000, the CTA denied the said motion for reconsideration, ratiocinating, that: "Considering that both the August 17, 1999 and the November 22, 1999 decisions of the Court of Appeals are pending appeal with the Supreme Court, this Court deems it appropriate to adhere to Our position on the matter until the issue is finally settled by the Supreme Court. DaScHC "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Respondent's Motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED. "SO ORDERED. "(SGD.) ERNESTO D. ACOSTA "Presiding Judge "(SGD.) AMANCIO Q. SAGA "(SGD.) RAMON O. DE VEYRA "Associate Judge "Associate Judge" 14 Disagreeing, petitioner sued out the present recourse, in support whereof he now assigns the following errors: 1. The Tax Court erred in holding that the 20% final withholding tax on bank's interest income should not form part of the taxable gross receipts in computing the 3% GRT. 2. The Tax Court erred in holding that the inclusion of the 20% final withholding tax on bank's interest income in the taxable gross receipt in computing the 5% GRT, constitutes double taxation in the prohibited sense. There is abundant merit in the petition. It is now insisted that in computing the 5% GRT, the 20% final withholding tax should form part of the taxable gross receipts, conversely applying the ruling in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Tours Specialist, Inc. , 183 SCRA 402 (1990), where it was held: "Gross receipts subject to tax under the Tax Code do not include monies or receipts entrusted to the taxpayer which do not belong to them and do not redound to the taxpayer's benefit; and it is not necessary that there must be a law or regulation which would exempt such monies and receipts within the meaning of gross receipts under the Tax Code." 15 Simply stated, since the interest income is earned by the bank and not by the withholding agent, then the said income belongs to the bank; thus, the interest income of the bank must be included in its gross receipts. In this situation, the withholding agent only remits the tax to the government in satisfaction of the bank's obligation to pay the tax. Hence, the withholding of the said tax and its payment to the government is for the bank's benefit. Petitioner also cited the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Asian Bank Corporation , 16 wherein the Thirteenth Division of this Court reversed the ruling of the CTA. In the cited case, it was held: "The case of Collector of Internal Revenue v. Manila Jockey Club, supra , is applicable. In that case, a percentage of the gross receipts to be collected by the Manila Jockey Club was earmarked by law to be turned over to the Board of Races and distributed as prizes among owners of winning horses and authorized bonus for jockeys. The Manila Jockey Club itself derives no bereft at all from earmarked percentage. This is why it cannot be considered as part of its gross receipts." 17 Respondent bank, on the other hand, restated in its memorandum the ruling in the case of " Asian Bank Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ," when the CTA declared that. "Revenue Regulation No. 12-80 dated November 7, 1980 on Taxation of Certain Income Derived from Banking Activities provides that the rates of tax to be imposed on the grow receipts of such financial institution shall be based on all items of income actually received, thus: 'SEC. 4. '(e) Gross receipts tax on banks, non-bank financial intermediaries, financing companies, and other non-bank financial intermediaries not performing quasi-banking activities. The rates of taxes to be imposed on the gross receipts of such financial institution shall be based on all items of income actually received. Mere accrual shall not be considered, but once payment is received on such accrual or in cases of prepayment, then the amount actually received shall be included in the tax base of such financial institutions, as provided hereunder.' aSADIC "From the foregoing, it is but logical to infer that the final tax, not having been received by the petitioner but instead went to the coffers of the government, should no longer form part of its gross receipts for the purpose of computing the GSTR." 18 It further contends that the petition for review must be denied, citing the cases of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v . Citytrust Investment Philippines , CA-G.R. SP No. 52707, dated August 17, 1999 and Commissioner Internal Revenue v. Solidbank Corporation , CA-G.R. SP No. 54599, dated July 18, 2000 where the ruling of the CTA that the 20% final withholding tax on its interest income should not form part of its taxable gross receipts was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Thus, on December 27, 2000, the First Division of this Court issued an interlocutory order, 19 to wit: "Considering the opposing views that this Court has taken upon this issue, we deem it best to stay the judgment of the Court of Tax Appeals pending a more definite resolution by the Supreme Court on the issue raised in the two cases aforementioned, which is determinative of the case at bench. "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered staying the judgment of the Court of Tax Appeals dated January 26, 2000. "SO ORDERED." 20 Finally, on July 9, 2003, petitioner filed a manifestation 21 informing this Court that in the consolidated cases of " China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, et al " and " Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. China Banking Corporation ," 22 the Supreme Court has resolved the foregoing issue by ruling that the 20% final withholding tax forms part of the taxable gross receipts. In the aforementioned case, China Banking Corporation, a universal banking corporation organized and existing under Philippine Law, filed with the Commissioner of Internal revenue a formal claim for tax refund or credit arguing that it was not liable for gross receipt tax on the sums withheld by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas as final withholding tax on its passive interest income for the year 1994 citing the case of Asian Bank. To ensure that it files its claim within the two-year prescriptive period, it also filed on the same day a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals which the said court granted but reduced the amount of the tax refund. Both the CBC and the Commissioner filed motions for reconsideration which the CTA both dismissed. The cases were then elevated to the Court of Appeals, and finally to the Supreme Court. The bone of contention in the aforementioned case is the same as the sole issue raised in the present case, which is whether or not the twenty percent (20%) final withholding tax on interest income forms part of the taxable gross receipts subject to the gross receipts tax (GRT). The pertinent provision is Section 121 23 of the Tax Code which provides: "Section 121. Tax on Banks and Non-bank Financial Intermediaries . There shall be collected a tax on gross receipts derived from sources within the Philippines by all banks and non-bank financial intermediaries in accordance with the following schedule: '(a) On interest, commissions and discounts from lending activities as well as income from financial leasing, on the basis of remaining maturities on instruments from which such receipt are derived. 'Short-term maturity (not in excess of two [2] years) 5% 'Medium-term maturity (over two [2] years but not exceeding four [4] years) 3% 'Long-teen maturity '(i) over four (4) year but not exceeding seven (7) years 1% '(ii) over seven (7) years 0% '(b) On dividends 0% '(c) On Royalties, rentals of property, real or personal, profits from exchange and all other items treated as gross income under Section 32 of this Code 0% "Provided, however, that in case the maturity period referred to in paragraph (a) is shortened thru pretermination, then the maturity period shall be reckoned to end as of the date of pretermination for purposes of classifying the transaction as short, medium, or long term and the correct rate of tax shall be applied accordingly. "Nothing in this Code shall preclude the Commissioner from imposing the same tax herein provided on persons performing similar banking activities." The Supreme Court in deciding the aforementioned case first defined "gross receipt" by tracing the history of the 'gross receipt tax'. In the said case, the High Court said that: "The gross receipts tax on banks was first imposed on 1 October 1946 by Republic Act No. 39 ("R.A. No. 39") which amended Section 249 of the Tax Code of 1939. Interest income of banks, without any deduction fanned part of their taxable gross receipts. From October 1946 to June 1977, there was no withholding tax on Interest income from bank deposits. "On 3 June 1977, Presidential Decree No. 1156 required the withholding at source of a 15% tax on interest on bank deposits. This tax was a creditable, not a final withholding tax. Despite the withholding of the 15% tax, the entire interest income, without my deduction, formed part of the bank's taxable gross receipts. On 17 September 1980, Presidential Decree No. 1739 made the withholding tax on interest a final tax at the rate of 15% on savings account and 20% on time deposits. Still, from 1980 until the Court of Tax Appeals decision in Asia Bank on 30 January 1996, banks included the entire interest income, without any deduction, in their taxable gross receipts. "In Asia Bank, the Court of Tax Appeals held that the final withholding tax is not part of the bank's taxable gross receipts. The tax court anchored its ruling on Section 4 (e) of Revenue Regulations No. 12-80, which stated that the gross receipts 'shall be based on all items actually received' by the bank. The tax court ruled that the bank does not actually receive the final withholding tax. As authority, the tax court cited Collector of Internal Revenue v. Manila Jockey Club , which held that 'gross receipts of the proprietor should not include any money which although delivered to the amusement place has been especially earmarked by law or regulation for some person other than the proprietor.' In effect, the tax court considered Section 4(e) of the Revenue Regulations No. 12-80 as earmarking by regulation the final withholding tax in favor of the government This earmarking, according to the tax court, prevented the final withholding tax from being 'actually received' by the bank. The tax court adopted the Asia Bank ruling in succeeding cases involving the same issue. ADCSEa "Subsequently, the Court of Tax Appeals reversed its ruling in Asian Bank. In Far East Bank & Trust Co. v. Commissioner , both promulgated on 16 November 2001, the tax court ruled that the final withholding tax forms part of the bank's gross receipts in computing the gross receipts tax. The tax court held that Section 4(e) of Revenue Regulations No. 12-80 did not prescribe the computation of the gross receipts but merely authorized 'the determination of the amount of gross receipts' on the basis of the method of accounting being used by the taxpayer. "The tax court also held in Far East bank and Standard Chartered Bank that the exclusion of the final withholding tax from gross receipts operates as a tax exemption which the law must expressly grant. No law provides for such exemption. In addition, the tax court pointed out that Section 7 (c) of Revenue Regulations No. 17-84 had already superseded Section 4 (e) of Revenue Regulations No. 12-80. Section 7 (c) of Revenue Regulations No. 17-84, the existing applicable regulation states: 'Section 7. Nature and Treatment of Interest on Deposit and Yield on Deposit Substitutes xxx xxx xxx '(c) If the receipt of the above-mentioned items of income are financial institutions, the same shall be included as part of the tax base upon which the gross receipts tax is imposed.' "The items of income referred to in Section 7 (c) are interest on bank deposits and yield from deposit substitutes. 24 xxx xxx xxx "On July 12, 1952, four years after R.A. No. 39 imposed the gross receipt tax on banks, the defunct Board of Tax Appeals had occasion to interpret the term 'gross receipts.' In National City Bank v. Collector of Internal Revenue , the bank contended that the amortized premium costs in buying US Government bonds should be deducted from the interest income from the bonds in computing the bank's gross receipts tax. On the other hand, the Collector of Internal Revenue argued that "gross receipts should be interpreted as the whole amount received as interest without deductions, otherwise, if deductions are made from gross receipt, it will be considered as 'net receipts.' The Board of Tax Appeals agreed with the Collector, . . . . The National City bank ruling remained unchallenged from 1952 until January 1996 when the Court of Tax Appeals rendered its decision in Asia Bank. In November 2001, however, the same tax court, citing National City Bank among other authorities, reversed Asia Bank in the twin cases of Far East Bank and Standard Chartered Bank." 25 The Court further explained its ruling by stating that: "Under Revenue Regulations No. 13-78, rental income received by a bank is subject to a creditable withholding tax. Under Section 121, such rental income, without any deduction of the withholding tax, forms part of the bank's taxable gross receipts. The amount of the creditable withholding tax is indubitably part of the bank's rental income. The creditable withholding tax merely an advance payment by the bank of its tax on the rental income and its payment extinguishes the bank's liability. The amount deducted by the payor-lessee and remitted to the government, used to pay the bank's tax liability. The amount deducted and remitted as creditable withholding tax patently comes from the bank's rental income, and correctly forms part of the bank's gross receipts. "In the same manner, the amount of the final withholding tax on interest income should not be deducted from the bank's interest income for purposes of the gross receipts tax. The final withholding tax on interest, like the creditable withholding tax on rentals, comes from the bank's income and is money the bank owns that is used to pay the bank's tax liability. The final withholding tax and creditable withholding tax constitute payment by the bank to extinguish a tax obligation to the government. The bank can only pay with money it owns, or with money it is authorized to spend. In either case, such money comes from the bank's revenues or receipts, and certainly not from the government's coffers. 26 xxx xxx xxx "There is a policy objective why no deductions, exemptions or exclusions are normally allowed in a gross receipts tax. The gross receipts tax, as opposed to the income tax, was devised to maintain simplicity in tax collection and to assure a steady source of state revenue even during periods of economic slowdown. Such a policy frowns upon erosion of the tax base. Deductions, exemptions or exclusions complicate the tax system and lessen the tax collection. By its nature, gross receipts tax applies to the entire receipts without any deduction, exemption or exclusion, unless the law clearly provides otherwise." 27 Finally, anent the issue of whether or not there is double taxation, this Court agrees with the Supreme Court that there is no double taxation. Jurisprudence defines double taxation as "taxing the same person twice by the same jurisdiction for the same thing." 28 In this case, the two taxes cover two different objects, the one covering interest income, and the other covering "gross receipts." The Supreme Court in holding that there is no double taxation said that: ". . . The rule, however, is well-settled that there is no constitutional prohibition against double taxation. . . . "Besides, there is no double taxation when Section 121 of the Tax Code imposes a gross receipts tax on interest income that is already subjected to the 20% final withholding tax under Section 27 of the Tax Code. The gross receipts tax is a business tax under Title V of the Tax Code, while the final withholding tax is an income tax under Title II of the Code. There is no double taxation if the law imposes two different taxes on the same income, business or property." 29 Considering that the facts and the issue in the case at bar are identical to the abovementioned case decided by the Supreme Court, this Court has to apply the ruling of the Supreme Court to this petition. This is in accordance with the legal maxim " stare decisis et non quieta movere " which means "follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled." As stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Negros Navigation Co., Ink. v. Court of Appeals . " Stare decisis simply declares that, for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those which follow, if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different." 30 This, this Court applying this legal maxim has no choice but to rule in favor of petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue by declaring that the 20% final withholding tax forms part of the taxable gross receipts. UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the petition at bench is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Tax Appeals dated January 26, 2000 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED. Garcia and Pine, JJ ., concur. Footnotes 1. Annex "A", Petition for Review, Rollo , pp. 2134. 2. Annex "B", Petition for Review. Rollo , pp. 3536. 3. Penned by Associate Judge Ramon O. De Veyra, concurred by Presiding Judge Ernesto D. Acosta; and Associate Judge Amancio Q. Saga, dissenting. 4. CTA Decision, pp. 13, Rollo , pp. 2123. 5. Rollo , pp. 2728. 6. P. 3 of CTA Decision; Rollo p. 23. 7. P. 5 of CTA Decision; Rollo p . 25. 8. Pp. 35 of CTA Decision; Rollo pp. 2325. 9. P. 5 of CTA Decision; Rollo p. 25. 10. Dissenting Opinion, pp. 23; Rollo , pp. 3233. 11. Annex "E" Petition for Review; Rollo pp. 5761. 12. Rollo , p. 58. 13. Annex "B", Petition for Review, Rollo , pp. 3536. 14. Ibid ., p. 36. 15. Reply, p. 1; Rollo , p. 78. 16. Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 51248. November 22, 1999. 17. Rollo , pp. 1314. 18. Rollo, p. 93. 19. See Special Former First Division's Resolution dated April 27, 2001, resolving that the Courts Decision dated December 27, 2000 should be considered as an interlocutory order. 20. Rollo, p. 110. 21. Rollo , p. 150. 22. Penned by Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, and concurred in by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., Associate Justice Jose C. Vitug, Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, and Associate Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna. 23. Formerly Section 119 of the Tax Code. 24. Consolidated cases of China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals . G.R. No. 146749, and Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. 147938 dated June 10, 2003; Rollo , pp. 163166. 25. Ibid, Rollo , pp. 167168. 26. Ibid, Rollo , pp. 173174. 27. Ibid., Rollo , pp. 175176. 28. Victorias Milling co. Inc. v. Mun. of Victorias, Negros Occidental . 25 SCRA 192, 209, citing Cooley, op. cit., p. 475, citing Harvey Coal and Coke Co . v . Dillon , 59 W. Va. 605, 53 S.E. 928. 29. Ibid, Rollo , pp. 191192. 30. Negros Navigation Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals , 281 SCRA 534, 543, Citing Heisler v . Thomas Colliery Co ., 274 Pa. 448, 452, 118A. 394, 393 (1922). Manogahela street Ry, Co . v . Philadelphia Co ., 350 Pa. 603, 39 A. 2d 909, 916 (1944); In re Burtt's Estate, 353 Pa. 217, 4 A. 2d 670, 677 (1945).