DOJ Opinion No. 157, s. 1981

DOJ OPINION NO. 157 , s. 1981 October 23, 1981 Mr. Rosalio A. Mallonga Asst. Secretary for Operations Executive Director Building Research & Development Staff Ministry of Public Works & Highways Manila Sir : This refers to your request for opinion on "whether or not the Angeles University Foundation may be exempted from the payment of building permit fees [imposed in the National Building Code (P.D. No. 1096] for the proposed construction of a 4-storey concrete building in their campus at Angeles City" in the light of the provision of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6055 ("An Act to provide for the conversion of educational institutions from stock corporations to non-profit foundations") which reads: "SEC. 8. The Foundation shall be exempt from the payment of all taxes, import duties, assessments, and other charges imposed by the Government on all income derived from or property, real or personal, used exclusively for the educational activities of the Foundation ." (Emphasis supplied) You state that the above said Foundation has filed with the Office of the City Engineer of Angeles City a request for exemption from the payment of subject building fees on the basis of Section 8, supra ,and that pursuant to the said provision, the Bureau of Internal Revenue has exempted said foundation from the payment of income tax. cdll Subject to the extended discussion hereunder and on the assumption that the proposed building shall be used exclusively for the education activities of the Angeles University Foundation, we answer the query in the affirmative. Section 209 of the National Building Code Provides: "SECTION 209. Exemption Public buildings and traditional indigenous family dwelling shall be exempt from payment of building permit fees. As used in this Code, the term 'traditional indigenous family dwelling' means a dwelling intended for the use and occupancy by the family of the owner only and constructed of native materials such as bamboo, nipa, or lumber, the total cost of which does not exceed fifteen thousand pesos." We understand that the query has arisen because while under the above-quoted provision of the National Building Code, only public building and indigenous family dwellings as defined therein are exempted from the payment of building permit fees, under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6055, supra, Foundations are exempt from all charges imposed by the government on, among others, property used exclusively for educational activities of the Foundations. Section 8 of R.A. No. 6055 should be deemed a prior special statute dealing particularly with the exemption of non-profit foundations from taxes and other government charges, whereas Section 209 of the National Building Code is the latter statutory provision referring generally to all building fees. It is a fundamental rule in statutory construction that a prior special statute cannot be repealed by a subsequent general statute unless the intent of the latter to repeal the former is clearly manifest. Instead, the provision of one must, whenever feasible, be reconciled with the other in order to carry both statutes into effect, so that the special law shall be deemed a qualification of, or an exemption to, the provision of the general law. (Ops. Sec. of Justice, Nos. 37 & 42, s. 1975 and the cases cited: No. 127, s. 1978; and No. 171, s. 1979). Inasmuch as the intent to repeal or to withdraw the exemption found in Section 8 of R.A. No. 6055, supra, is not manifest from the provisions of the National Building Code, the former should be deemed in full force and effect, as an exception to the latter. In other words, insofar as Foundations are concerned, the exemption clause of Section 8 shall apply; and therefore they are exempt from the charges imposed by the government on their property which are used exclusively for educational purposes. LexLib By their very nature, we believe that the" building permit fees" imposed under the National Building Code are "charges" imposed by the government on buildings for regulatory services rendered by the officials charged with the implementation of the National Building Code. It has been held that charges are sustainable as "fees" (Hanson vs. Griffiths, 124 N.Y.S. 2d 473, 476, 204 Misc. 736 [1953]) and the word "fees" designates the sum prescribed by law as charges for services rendered by public officers (Collman vs. Manamaker, 149, p. 292, 293, 27 Idaho, 342 [1915]). Hence, subject fees fall within the purview of the exemption provision of R.A. 6055, supra . Upon the foregoing premises, the conclusion hereinabove given is hereby reiterated. Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) RICARDO C. PUNO Minister of Justice