San Pablo Manufacturing Corporation vs Commissioner of Internal Revenue

written by Howard

G.R. No. 147749 – 525 Phil. 281 – 492 SCRA 192 – Statutory Construction – Expressio Unius est Exclusio Alterius 

San Pablo Manufacturing Corporation (SPMC) was assessed a 3% tax on its sales of corn and edible oil as manufactured products – this is pursuant to Section 168 of the 1987 Tax Code. Said corn and edible oil products were sold to United Coconut Chemicals (UNICHEM) who in turn exports these products and sell them abroad.

SPMC invoked that it is exempt from the tax as it invoked the same Section of the 1987 Tax Code which provides in part:

xxx Provided, however, That this tax shall not apply to rope, coconut oil, palm oil and the by-product of copra from which it is produced or manufactured and desiccated coconut, if such rope, coconut oil, palm oil, copra by-products and desiccated coconuts, shall be removed for exportation by the proprietor or operator of the factory or the miller himself, and are actually exported without returning to the Philippines, whether in their original state or as an ingredient or part of any manufactured article or products: xxx

SPMC’s interpretation of the law is as follows:

  1. That there is indeed a 3% tax on edible oil products;
  2. But that said tax exempts manufacturers who export these edible oil products;
  3. That SPMC is considered to be an exporter because it sells the oil products to UNICHEM, its purchaser, who then exports the oil products.

ISSUE: Whether or not SPMC’s interpretation is correct.

HELD: No. The legal maxim “Expressio Unius est Exclusio Alterius” applies. Nowhere in the law was “corn oil” included in the enumeration of tax exempt exported products. Nor did it mention to exempt a manufacturer who, though not directly exporting its edible oil products nevertheless sells said product to a purchaser who does export. Where the law enumerates the subject or condition upon which it applies, it is to be construed as excluding from its effects all those not expressly mentioned. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Anything that is not included in the enumeration is excluded therefrom and a meaning that does not appear nor is intended or reflected in the very language of the statute cannot be placed therein. The rule proceeds from the premise that the legislature would not have made specific enumerations in a statute if it had the intention not to restrict its meaning and confine its terms to those expressly mentioned.

Read full text