Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaSECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. L-23623 June 30, 1977ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, petitioner, vs.MANILA ELECTRIC COMPAN !n" COURT OF TA# APPEALS, respondents.Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz Assistant Solicitor General Felicisimo R. Rosete and Solicitor Alejandro B. Afurong for petitioner.Ross, Selph Salcedo, Del Rosario Bito & Misa for priate respondent. FERNAN$O, J.:he reversal b! respondent Court of a" #ppeals of a deter$ination b! the then #ctin% Co$$issioner of Custo$s, the late Norberto Ro$ualde&, 'r., that private respondent Manila Electric Co$pan! (as not e"e$pt fro$ the pa!$ent of the special i$port ta" under Republic #ct No. )*+, 1 for ship$ent to it of insulatin% oil, respondent Court entertainin% the contrar! vie( 2 led to this petition for revie(. he contention pressed in support of thepetition is that as a ta" e"e$ption is to be construed strictl!, the decision of the respondent Court, (hich assu$ed that insulatin% oil can be considered as insulators $ust be reversed and set aside. he appealed decision of respondent Court in the li%ht of applicable authorities supplies the best refutation of such contention. It $ust be sustained.he appealed decision 3 set forth that petitioner Manila Electric Co., nor private respondent, in appealin% fro$ a deter$ination b! the then #ctin% Co$$issioner of Custo$s, no( petitioner, -clai$s that it is e"e$pt fro$ the special i$port ta" not onl! b! virtue of Section . of Republic #ct No. )*+,, (hich e"e$pts fro$ said ta" e/uip$ent and spare parts for use in industries,but also under Para%raph +, Part (o, of its franchise, (hich e"pressl! e"e$pts is insulators fro$ all ta"es of (hatever 0ind and nature. % It then $ade reference to the franchise of private respondent Manila Electric Co.1 -Par. +. he %rantee shall be liable to pa! the sa$e ta"es upon its real estate, buildin%s, plant 2not includin% poles, (ires, transfor$ers, and insulators3, $achiner! and personal propert! as other persons are or $a! behereafter re/uired b! la( to pa!. In consideration of Part (o of the franchise herein %ranted, to (it, the ri%ht to build and $aintain in the Cit! of Manila and its suburbs a plant for the conve!in% and furnishin% of electric current for li%ht, heat, and po(er, and to char%e for the sa$e, the %rantee shall pa! to the Cit! of Manila t(o and one4half per centu$ of the %ross earnin%s received fro$ the business under this franchise in the cit! and its suburbs1 ...and shall be in lieu of all ta"es and assess$ents of (hatsoever nature, and b! (hatsoever authorit! upon the privile%es, earnin%s, inco$e, franchise, and poles, (ires, transfor$ers, and insulators of the %rantee, fro$ (hich ta"es and assess$ents the %rantee is hereb! e"pressl! e"e$pted.- & It notedthat the above -e"e$pts it fro$ all ta"es of (hatever nature, and b! (hatever authorit!, (ith respect to its insulators in consideration for the pa!$ent of the percenta%e ta" on its %ross earnin%s.- 6he /uestion then, accordin% to such decision of respondent Court is1 -Does the insulatin% oil in /uestion co$e (ithin the $eanin% of the ter$ 5insulator 56- 7 hen it (ent on1 -insulatin% oils are $ineral oils of hi%h di4electrics stren%th and hi%h 7ash point e$plo!ed in circuit brea0ers, s(itches, transfor$ers and other electric apparatus. #n oil (ith a 7ash point of 89: ; < and =re point of *)> ; < is considered safe. # clean, (ell4 re=ned oil (ill have a $ini$u$ dielectric of 88,>> volts, but the presence of a slo( as >.>)? (ater (ill reduce the di4electric stren%th drasticall!. he insulatin% oils, therefore, cannot be stored for lon% periods because of the dan%er of absorbin% $oisture. I$purities such as acids or al0alies also detract fro$ thestren%th of the oil. Since insulatin% oils are used for coolin% as (ell as for insulatin%, the viscosit! should be lo( enou%h for free circulation, and the! should not %u$. 2Materials @andboo0 b! Aeor%e '. Brad!, 9th Edition )+:., pp. ,8)4,8*.3 ... .- 'he last portion of the appealed decision e"plained (h! the deter$ination ofthe #ctin% Co$$issioner of Custo$s $ust be reversed1 -here is no /uestionthat insulatin% oils of the t!pe i$ported b! petitioner are 5used for coolin% as (ell as for insulatin%,5 and (hen used in oil circuit brea0ers, the! are 5re/uired to $aintain insulation bet(een the contacts inside the tan0 and thetan0 itself.5 ... he decision appealed fro$ not bein% in accordance (ith la(, the sa$e is hereb! reversed. Respondent is ordered to refund to petitioner the su$ of P++:.>> (ithin thirt! da!s fro$ the date this decision beco$es =nal, (ithout pronounce$ent as to costs.- 9 It (as therein $ade clear that private respondent (as not liable for the pa!$ent of the special i$port ta" under Republic #ct No. )*+,.#s noted at the outset, the decision spea0s for itself. It cannot be sti%$ati&edas suCerin% fro$ an! 7a( that (ould call for its reversal.). It is to be ad$itted, as contended b! petitioner, that this Court is co$$itted to the principle that an e"e$ption fro$ ta"ation $ust be Dusti=ed b! (ords too clear to be $isread. #s set forth in !ommissioner of "nternal Reenue . Guerrero# 10 -., in !atholic !hurch . $astings to )+.., in %sso Standard %astern, "nc. . Acting !ommissioner of !ustoms, it has been the constant and unifor$ holdin% that e"e$ption fro$ ta"ation is not favored and is never presu$ed, so that if %ranted it $ust be strictl! construed a%ainst the ta"pa!er. #Er$ativel! put, the la( fro(ns on e"e$ption fro$ ta"ation, hence, an e"e$ptin% provision should be construed strictissimi juris.- 11 Such a rulin% (as reaEr$ed in subse/uent decisions. 12 It does not $ean, ho(ever, that petitioner should prevail, for as (as une/uivocall! set forth in the leadin% ease of Repu&lic Flour Mills . !ommissioner of "nternal Reenue, 13 this Court spea0in% throu%h 'ustice '.B.F. Re!es. -It is true that in the construction of ta" statutes ta" e"e$ptions2and deductions are of this nature3 are not favored in the la(, and are construed strictissimi juris a%ainst the ta"pa!er. @o(ever, it is e/uall! a reco%ni&ed principle that (here the provision of the la( is clear and una$bi%uous, so that there is no occasion for the court5s see0in% the le%islative intent, the la( $ust be ta0en as it is, devoid of Dudicial addition or subtraction. In this ease, (e =nd the provision of Section )9.4# 4(henever a ta' free product is utili&ed, ... G all enco$passin% to co$prehend ta"4free ra( $aterials, even if i$ported. Hhere the la( provided no /uali=cation for the %rantin% of the privile%e, the court is not at libert! to suppl! an!. 1% hat is (hat (as done b! respondent Court of a" #ppeals. It sho(ed fealt! to thise/uall! (ell. settled doctrine. It construed the statutor! provision as it is (ritten. It is precluded, in the lan%ua%e of Ithe Republic F48>9)8, Septe$ber 88, )+.K, 8) SCR# )9>.)) "&id, )9*4)9,. Catholic Church v. @astin%s in reported in : Phil. K>) 2)+>.3 and Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. v. #ctin% Co$$issioner of Custo$s, F48)9,), October 89,)+.., in )9 SCR# ,99. he opinion also cited Aovern$ent v. Monte de Piedad, *: Phil. ,8 2)+).3. #siatic Petroleu$ Ao. vs. Flanes ,+ Phil. ,.. 2)+8.3I @ouse v. Posadas, :* Phil. **9 2)+8+3I Phil. el. and el. Co. vs. Collector, :9 Phil. .*+ 2)+**3I Areen=led v. Meer, KK Phil. *+, 2)+,.3I Collector of Internal Revenue v. Manila 'oc0e! Club, +9 Phil. .K> 2)+:.3I Phil. Auarant! Co., Inc. v. Co$$issioner, F488>K,, Septe$ber ., )+.:, ): SCR# )I and #bad v. Court of a" #ppeals, F48>9*,, October )+, )+.., )9 SCR# *K,.)8 Cf. Co$$issioner of Internal Revenue v. Visa!an Electric Co., F488.)), Ma! 8K, )+.9, 8* SCR# K):I E. Rodri%ue& v. Collector ofInternal Revenue, F48*>,), 'ul! *), )+.+, 89 SCR# )))+I #sturiasSu%ar Central v. Co$$issioner of Custo$s, F4) +**K. Sept. *>, )+.+, 8+ SCR# .)KI Philippine Iron Mines v. Co$$issioner of Custo$s v. Philippine #cet!lene Co., F488,,*, Ma! 8+, )+K), *+ SCR# K>I Davao Fi%ht and Po(er Co. v. Co$$issioner of Custo$s, F489K*+, March 8+, )+K8, ,, SCR# )88I Honder Mechnical En%ineerin% Corp. v. Court of a" #ppeals, F4889+:, 'une *>, )+K:, ., SCR# :::I Co$$issioner of Internal Revenue v. P. '. Liener Co., F48,K:,, 'ul! )9, )+K:, .: SCR# ),8I Manila Electric Co. v. Vera, F48++9K, Oct. 88, )+K:, .K SCR# *:).)* F48:.>8, , *) SCR# :8>.), "&id, :8K.): "&id.). F4)+9>,, October 8*,)+.9,8) SCR# ,,,.)K "&id, ,,9. he opinion cited Sanche& v. Co$$issioner of Custo$s, )>8 Phil. *K 2)+:K3I Castro v. Collector of Internal Revenue, )), Phil. )>*8 2)+.83I Co$$issioner of Internal Revenue v. Priscila Estate, Inc., F4)9898, Ma! 8+, )+.,, )) SCR# vs. Philippine Auarant! Co., Inc. v. Co$$issioner of Internal Revenue, F488>K,, Sept. ., )+.:, ): SCR# )I and Republic v. Ra&on, F4)K,.8, Ma! 8+, )+.K,8> SCR# 8*,.)9 F48*88., Nove$ber 89, )+.K, l SCR# )))).)+ "&id, )))94)))+.8> F48,>8>, 'ul! 8+, )+.9, 8, SCR# )+9.8) F488>,., October 8+, )+.9, 8: SCR# 9>+.88 F489.+*, Septe$ber *>, )+K,, .> SCR# :8.8* F48+*)9, Nove$ber 8+, )+K,, .) SCR# 8*9.8, .> SCR# :8, :+.