DOJ Opinion No. 023, s. 1992

DOJ OPINION NO. 023 , s. 1992 February 28, 1992 Hon. Tomas I. Alcantara Managing Head and Vice-Chairman Board of Investments Industry and Investment Building 385 Gil J. Puyat Avenue Makati, Metro Manila Sir : This refers to your request for opinion on the applicability of Article 65 of E.O. No. 226, other wise known as the Omnibus Investments Code Of 1987, which reads: "The regional or area headquarters of multinational companies shall be exempt from all kinds of local licenses, fees, dues, impost or any other local taxes or burdens." You state that the query is an offshoot of the letters from Asian Finance and Investments Corporation, Ltd. (AFIC) which is authorized under SEC Reg. No. FM-018 to established its regional headquarters and which is required by the Municipality of Makati, despite your indorsement for its exemption to pay Mayor's Permit Fee, and all other fees, imposts, charges or burdens to a total of P2,400.00, and from the Philippine Association of Multinational Companies and Regional Headquarters, Inc. (PAMURI) on behalf of its members, Cable and Wireless (Marines) Ltd. which is authorized under SEC. Reg. No. FM 034 (1990) and Certificate of Authority NO. 004 (1991) to established a regional office and regional warehouse, respectively and which is required by the Municipality of Bauan, Batangas to pay Real Property Tax on its Cable Depot (Regional Warehouse); that both AFIC and PAMURI contend that they are exempt from the payment of the aforesaid charges and real property tax, respectively, virtue of the aforequoted provision of Article 65 of E.O. 226; that it is your view that Cable and Wireless (marines), Ltd. is not covered under Article 65 of E.O. 226 since, as ruled by the Supreme Court, Real Property Tax is not a local tax; and that the Department of the Interior and Local Government, upon the request of the Municipality of Makati, has rendered its opinion favoring the exemption of AFIC from the payment of local business taxes or license fees. We deeply regret our inability to render an opinion on the matter, since your query involves the tax-exempt status of the subject firms, which is beyond the spheres of functions of this Office and which properly pertains to the department of Finance, a co-equal body. Pursuant to established precedents, the Secretary of Justice refrains from taking cognizance of matters over which another office or agency has primary jurisdiction, unless requested by such agency or office (Sec. of Justice Op. No. 123, s. 1980). Moreover, as you state, the Department of the Interior and Local Government has rendered its opinion on the case of AFIC. It has also been the established policy of the Secretary of Justice to refrain from passing upon or reviewing a ruling of a coordinate office over which we have no revisory authority (Sec. of Justice Opn. Nos. 22, 25, 84, 90, and 233, s. 1982). prcd Very truly yours, (SGD.) EDUARDO G. MONTENEGRO Acting Secretary