8/12/2019 cir vs. sm

1/2

G.R. No. 183505 February 26, 2010

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,Petitioner,vs.SM PRIME HOLDINGS, INC. and FIRST ASIA REALTYDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,Respondents.

This Petition for Review on Certiorariunder Rule 45.

FACTS

CTA Case No. 7079

- Sept. 26, 2003, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) sentSM Prime Holdings, Inc. a Preliminary Assessment Notice(PAN) for VAT deficiency on cinema ticket sales in theamount of P119,276,047.40 for taxable year 2000.

8In

response, SM Prime filed a letter-protest dated December15, 2003.

9

- Dec. 12, 2003, the BIR sent SM Prime a Formal Letter ofDemand for the alleged VAT deficiency, which the latterprotested in a letter dated January 14, 2004.

10

- Sept. 6, 2004, the BIR denied the protest filed by SMPrime and ordered it to pay the VAT deficiency for taxableyear 2000 in the amount of P124,035,874.12.

11

- Oct. 15, 2004, SM Prime filed a Petition for Review beforethe CTA docketed as CTA Case No. 7079.

12

CTA Case No. 7085

- May 15, 2002, the BIR sent First Asia Realty DevelopmentCorporation a PAN for VAT deficiency on cinema ticketsales for taxable year 1999 in the total amountof P35,823,680.93.

13First Asia protested the PAN in a

letter dated July 9, 2002.14

- Subsequently, the BIR issued a Formal Letter of Demand

for the alleged VAT deficiency which was protested byFirst Asia in a letter dated December 12, 2002.

15

- On September 6, 2004, the BIR rendered a Decisiondenying the protest and ordering First Asia to pay theamount of P35,823,680.93 for VAT deficiency for taxable

year 1999.16

- Accordingly, on October 20, 2004, First Asia filed a

Petition for Review before the CTA, docketed as CTACase No. 7085.

17

CTA Case No. 7111

- On April 16, 2004, the BIR sent a PAN to First Asia forVAT deficiency on cinema ticket sales for taxable year2000 in the amount of P35,840,895.78. First Asia

protested the PAN through a letter dated April 22, 2004.18

- Thereafter, the BIR issued a Formal Letter of Demand for

alleged VAT deficiency.19First Asia protested the same ina letter dated July 9, 2004.

20

- On October 5, 2004, the BIR denied the protest andordered First Asia to pay the VAT deficiency in the amountofP35,840,895.78 for taxable year 2000.

21

- This prompted First Asia to file a Petition for Reviewbefore the CTA on December 16, 2004. The case wasdocketed as CTA Case No. 7111.

22

CTA Case No. 7272

Re: Assessment Notice No. 008-02

A PAN for VAT deficiency on cinema ticket sales for thetaxable year 2002 in the total amount of P32,802,912.21

was issued against First Asia by the BIR. In response,First Asia filed a protest-letter dated November 11, 2004.The BIR then sent a Formal Letter of Demand, which wasprotested by First Asia on December 14, 2004.

23

Re: Assessment Notice No. 003-03

A PAN for VAT deficiency on cinema ticket sales in the totalamount of P28,196,376.46 for the taxable year 2003 was

issued by the BIR against First Asia. In a letter datedSeptember 23, 2004, First Asia protested the PAN. AFormal Letter of Demand was thereafter issued by the BIR

to First Asia, which the latter protested through a letterdated November 11, 2004.24

On May 11, 2005, the BIR rendered a Decision denying theprotests. It ordered First Asia to pay the amountsofP33,610,202.91 and P28,590,826.50 for VAT deficiency

for taxable years 2002 and 2003, respectively.25

Thus, on June 22, 2005, First Asia filed a Petition for Reviewbefore the CTA, docketed as CTA Case No. 7272.

26

Consolidated Petitions

- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) filed hisAnswers to the Petitions filed by SM Prime and FirstAsia.

27

- July 1, 2005, SM Prime filed a Motion to Consolidate CTACase Nos. 7085, 7111 and 7272 with CTA Case No. 7079on the grounds that the issues raised therein are identicaland that SM Prime is a majority shareholder of First Asia.The motion was granted.

28

- Upon submission of the parties respective memoranda,the consolidated cases were submitted for decision on thesole issue of whether gross receipts derived fromadmission tickets by cinema/theater operators orproprietors are subject to VAT.

29

Ruling o f the CTA First Div is ion

- Granted the Petition for Review. CIR Decision denyingpetitioners protests against deficiency VAT REVERSED.

- Activity of showing cinematographic films is not a servicecovered by VAT under the NIRC of 1997, as amended, butan activity subject to amusement tax under RA 7160, LGCof 1991.

- Consistent with the States policy to have a viable,sustainable and competitive theater and film industry, thenational government should be precluded from imposingits own business tax in addition to that already imposedand collected by local government units.

- CTA First Division likewise found that RevenueMemorandum Circular (RMC) No. 28-2001, which

imposes VAT on gross receipts from admission to cinemahouses, cannot be given force and effect because it failedto comply with the procedural due process for taxissuances under RMC No. 20-86.

- MR of CIR denied.

Ruling of the CTA En Banc

- Denied36

the Petition for Review and dismissed37

as wellpetitioners MR.

- The CTA En Bancheld that Section 108 of the NIRCactually sets forth an exhaustive enumeration of whatservices are intended to be subject to VAT.

- And since the showing or exhibition of motion pictures,

films or movies by cinema operators or proprietors is notamong the enumerated activities contemplated in thephrase "sale or exchange of services," then gross receiptsderived by cinema/ theater operators or proprietors fromadmission tickets in showing motion pictures, film or movieare not subject to VAT.

- Subject to amusement tax under the LGC of 1991.- CTA En Banc agreed with its First Division that the same

cannot be given force and effect for failure to comply withRMC No. 20-86.

Issue: whether the gross receipts derived by operators orproprietors of cinema/theater houses from admissiontickets are subject to VAT.

Our Ruling: Petition DENIED. The assailed April 30, 2008Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc and itsResolution denying the motion for reconsiderationare AFFIRMED.

- The enumeration of services subject to VAT under Section108 of the NIRC is not exhaustive

- SEC. 108. Value-added Tax on Sale of Services and Useor Lease of Properties.

(A) Rate and Base of Tax. There shall be levied, assessedand collected, a value-added tax equivalent to ten percent(10%) of gross receipts derived from the sale or exchange

of services, including the use or lease of properties.

The phrase "sale or exchange of services" means theperformance of all kinds of services in the Philippines for

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt8

8/12/2019 cir vs. sm

2/2

others for a fee, remuneration or consideration, includingthose performed or rendered by construction and servicecontractors; stock, real estate, commercial, customs andimmigration brokers; lessors of property, whether personalor real; warehousing services; lessors or distributors ofcinematographic films; persons engaged in milling,processing, manufacturing or repacking goods for others;proprietors, operators or keepers of hotels, motels, resthouses, pension houses, inns, resorts; proprietors oroperators of restaurants, refreshment parlors, cafes andother eating places, including clubs and caterers; dealersin securities; lending investors; transportation contractorson their transport of goods or cargoes, including personswho transport goods or cargoes for hire and otherdomestic common carriers by land, air and water relativeto their transport of goods or cargoes; services offranchise grantees of telephone and telegraph, radio andtelevision broadcasting and all other franchise granteesexcept those under Section 119 of this Code; services ofbanks, non-bank financial intermediaries and financecompanies; and non-life insurance companies (excepttheir crop insurances), including surety, fidelity, indemnityand bonding companies; and similar services regardlessof whether or not the performance thereof calls for theexercise or use of the physical or mental faculties. Thephrase "sale or exchange of services" shall likewise

include:

(1) The lease or the use of or the right or privilege to use anycopyright, patent, design or model, plan, secret formula orprocess, goodwill, trademark, trade brand or other likeproperty or right;

(7) The lease of motion picture films, films, tapes and discs;and

(8) The lease or the use of or the right to use radio, television,satellite transmission and cable television time.

- A cursory reading of the foregoing provision clearly showsthat the enumeration of the "sale or exchange of services"subject to VAT is not exhaustive. The words, "including,""similar services," and "shall likewise include," indicatethat the enumeration is by way of example only. Amongthose included in the enumeration is the "lease of motionpicture films, films, tapes and discs." This, however, is notthe same as the showing or exhibition of motion picturesor films.

- Since the activity of showing motion pictures, films ormovies by cinema/ theater operators or proprietors is notincluded in the enumeration, it is incumbent upon the courtto the determine whether such activity falls under thephrase "similar services."

- The legislature never intended operators or proprietors of

cinema/theater houses to be covered by VAT.

Based on the foregoing, the following facts can beestablished:

(1) Historically, the activity of showing motion pictures, films ormovies by cinema/theater operators or proprietors hasalways been considered as a form of entertainmentsubject to amusement tax.

(2) Prior to the Local Tax Code, all forms of amusement taxwere imposed by the national government. (NIRC of 1939)

(3) When the Local Tax Code was enacted, amusement taxon admission tickets from theaters, cinematographs,concert halls, circuses and other places of amusementswere transferred to the local government.

(4) Under the NIRC of 1977, the national government

imposed amusement tax only on proprietors, lessees oroperators of cabarets, day and night clubs, Jai-Alai andrace tracks.

(5) The VAT law was enacted to replace the tax on originaland subsequent sales tax and percentage tax on certainservices.

(6) When the VAT law was implemented, it exempted personssubject to amusement tax under the NIRC from thecoverage of VAT.1auuphil

(7) When the Local Tax Code was repealed by the LGC of1991, the local government continued to imposeamusement tax on admission tickets from theaters,cinematographs, concert halls, circuses and other placesof amusements.

(8) Amendments to the VAT law have been consistent inexempting persons subject to amusement tax under theNIRC from the coverage of VAT.

(9) Only lessors or distributors of cinematographic films areincluded in the coverage of VAT.

- To hold otherwise would impose an unreasonable burdenon cinema/theater houses operators or proprietors, whowould be paying an additional 10%

55VAT on top of the

30% amusement tax imposed by Section 140 of the LGCof 1991, or a total of 40% tax. Such imposition wouldresult in injustice, as persons taxed under the NIRC of1997 would be in a better position than those taxed underthe LGC of 1991. We need not belabor that a literalapplication of a law must be rejected if it will operateunjustly or lead to absurd results.

- The power of taxation is sometimes called also the powerto destroy. Therefore, it should be exercised with cautionto minimize injury to the proprietary rights of a taxpayer. Itmust be exercised fairly, equally and uniformly, lest the taxcollector kill the "hen that lays the golden egg." And, inorder to maintain the general public's trust and confidencein the Government this power must be used justly and nottreacherously.

- The repeal of the Local Tax Code by the LGC of 1991 isnot a legal basis for the imposition of VAT

- Petitioner ratiocinated that Sec. 260 of CA 466, NIRC of1939, computed on the amount paid for admission. LocalTax Code under PD 231 (1973) the power of imposingtaxes on gross receipts from admission of persons tocinema/theater and other places of amusement had,

thereafter, been transferred to the provincial government,to the exclusion of the national or municipal government.However, the said provision containing the exclusivepower of the provincial government to impose amusementtax had also been repealed and/or deleted LGC 1991.

Accordingly, the enactment of RA No. 7160, thus,eliminating the statutory prohibition on the nationalgovernment to impose business tax on gross receipts fromadmission of persons to places of amusement, led the wayto the valid imposition of the VAT pursuant to Section 102(now Section 108) of the old Tax Code, as amended bythe Expanded VAT Law (RA No. 7716) and which wasimplemented beginning January 1, 1996.

- SC disagrees. The removal of the prohibition under theLocal Tax Code did not grant nor restore to the national

government the power to impose amusement tax oncinema/theater operators or proprietors. Neither did itexpand the coverage of VAT. Since the imposition of a taxis a burden on the taxpayer, it cannot be presumed norcan it be extended by implication. A law will not beconstrued as imposing a tax unless it does so clearly,expressly, and unambiguously.

59As it is, the power to

impose amusement tax on cinema/theater operators orproprietors remains with the local government.

Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 28-2001 is invalid

- Considering that there is no provision of law imposing VATon the gross receipts of cinema/theater operators or

proprietors derived from admission tickets, RMC No. 28-2001 which imposes VAT on the gross receipts fromadmission to cinema houses must be struck down. Wecannot overemphasize that RMCs must not override,supplant, or modify the law, but must remain consistentand in harmony with, the law they seek to apply andimplement.

60

Rule on tax exemption does not apply

Moreover, contrary to the view of petitioner, respondents neednot prove their entitlement to an exemption from thecoverage of VAT. The rule that tax exemptions should beconstrued strictly against the taxpayer presupposes that

the taxpayer is clearly subject to the tax being leviedagainst him.

61The reason is obvious: it is both illogical and

impractical to determine who are exempted without firstdetermining who are covered by the provision.

62Thus,

unless a statute imposes a tax clearly, expressly andunambiguously, what applies is the equally well-settledrule that the imposition of a tax cannot be presumed.

63In

fact, in case of doubt, tax laws must be construed strictlyagainst the government and in favor of the taxpayer.

64

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_183505_2010.html#fnt55