Sunday, July 15, 2012

Are non-profit schools exempted from building permit fees and other regulatory fees, as well as local real property taxes? - G.R. No. 189999

G.R. No. 189999

"x x x.


For resolution are the following issues: (1) whether petitioner is exempt from the payment of building permit and related fees imposed under the National Building Code; and (2) whether the parcel of land owned by petitioner which has been assessed for real property tax is likewise exempt.  
          R.A. No. 6055 granted tax exemptions to educational institutions like petitioner which converted to non-stock, non-profit educational foundations.  Section 8 of said law provides:
SECTION 8. The Foundation shall be exempt from the payment of all taxes, import duties, assessments, and other charges imposed by the Government onall income derived from or property, real or personal, used exclusively for the educational activities of the Foundation.(Emphasis supplied.)
          On February 19, 1977, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1096 was issued adopting the National Building Code of the Philippines.  The said Code requires every person, firm or corporation, including any agency or instrumentality of the government to obtain a building permit for any construction, alteration or repair of any building or structure.[19]Building permit refers to “a document issued by the Building Official x x x to an owner/applicant to proceed with the construction, installation, addition, alteration, renovation, conversion, repair, moving, demolition or other work activity of a specificproject/building/structure or portions thereof after the accompanying principal plans, specifications and other pertinent documents with the duly notarized application are found satisfactory and substantially conforming with the National Building Code of the Philippines x x x and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR).”[20] Building permit fees refers to the basic permit fee and other charges imposed under the National Building Code.
          Exempted from the payment of building permit fees are: (1) public buildings and (2) traditional indigenous family dwellings.[21]  Not being expressly included in the enumeration of structures to which the building permit fees do not apply, petitioner’s claim for exemption rests solely on its interpretation of the term “other charges imposed by the National Government” in the tax exemption clause of R.A. No. 6055.  
A “charge” is broadly defined as the “price of, or rate for, something,” while the word “fee” pertains to a “charge fixed by law for services of public officers or for use of a privilege under control of government.”[22]  As used in the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), charges refers to pecuniary liability, as rents or fees against persons or property, while fee means a charge fixed by law or ordinance for the regulation or inspection of a business or activity.[23]
That “charges” in its ordinary meaning appears to be a general term which could cover a specific “fee” does not support petitioner’s position that building permit fees are among those “other charges” from which it was expressly exempted.   Note that the “other charges” mentioned in Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 6055 is qualified by the words “imposed by the Government on all x x x property used exclusively for the educational activities of the foundation.”  Building permit fees are not impositions on property but on the activity subject of government regulation. While it may be argued that the fees relate to particular properties, i.e., buildings and structures, they are actually imposed on certain activities the owner may conduct either to build such structures or to repair, alter, renovate or demolish the same.  This is evident from the following provisions of the National Building Code:
            Section 102. Declaration of Policy
            It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State to safeguard life, health, property, and public welfare, consistent with theprinciples of sound environmental management and control; and tothis end, make it the purpose of this Code to provide for allbuildings and structures, a framework of minimum standards and requirements to regulate and control their location, site, design quality of materials, construction, use, occupancy, and maintenance.
            Section 103. Scope and Application
(a) The provisions of this Code shall apply to the design,location, sitting, construction, alteration, repair,conversion, use, occupancy, maintenance, moving, demolitionof, and addition to public and private buildings andstructures, except traditional indigenous family dwellingsas defined herein.
            x x x x
Section 301. Building Permits
No person, firm or corporation, including any agency orinstrumentality of the government shall erect, construct, alter, repair, move, convert or demolish any building or structure or causethe same to be done without first obtaining a building permittherefor from the Building Official assigned in the place where thesubject building is located or the building work is to be done. (Italics supplied.)
That a building permit fee is a regulatory imposition is highlighted by the fact that in processing an application for a building permit, the Building Official shall see to it that the applicant satisfies and conforms with approved standard requirements on zoning and land use, lines and grades, structural design, sanitary and sewerage, environmental health, electrical and mechanical safety as well as with other rules and regulations implementing the National Building Code.[24]  Thus, ancillary permits such as electrical permit, sanitary permit and zoning clearance must also be secured and the corresponding fees paid before a building permit may be issued.  And as can be gleaned from the implementing rules and regulations of the National Building Code, clearances from various government authorities exercising and enforcing regulatory functions affecting buildings/structures, like local government units, may be further required before a building permit may be issued.[25]
Since building permit fees are not charges on property, they are not impositions from which petitioner is exempt.
As to petitioner’s argument that the building permit fees collected by respondents are in reality taxes because the primary purpose is to raise revenues for the local government unit, the same does not hold water. 
A charge of a fixed sum which bears no relation at all to the cost of inspection and regulation may be held to be a tax rather than an exercise of the police power.[26]  In this case, the Secretary of Public Works and Highways who is mandated to prescribe and fix the amount of fees and other charges that the Building Official shall collect in connection with the performance of regulatory functions,[27] has promulgated and issued the Implementing Rules and Regulations[28] which provide for the bases of assessment of such fees, as follows:
1.      Character of occupancy or use of building
2.      Cost of construction “ 10,000/sq.m (A,B,C,D,E,G,H,I), 8,000 (F), 6,000 (J)
3.      Floor area
4.      Height
Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the above bases of assessment were arbitrarily determined or unrelated to the activity being regulated.  Neither has petitioner adduced evidence to show that the rates of building permit fees imposed and collected by the respondents were unreasonable or in excess of the cost of regulation and inspection.
In Chevron Philippines, Inc. v. Bases Conversion Development Authority,[29] this Court explained:
In distinguishing tax and regulation as a form of police power, the determining factor is the purpose of the implemented measure. If the purpose is primarily to raise revenue, then it will be deemed a tax even though the measure results in some form of regulation. On the other hand, if the purpose is primarily to regulate, then it is deemed a regulation and an exercise of the police power of the state, even though incidentally, revenue is generated. Thus, in Gerochi v. Department of Energy, the Court stated:
“The conservative and pivotal distinction between these two (2) powers rests in the purpose for which the charge is made. If generation of revenue is the primary purpose and regulation is merely incidental, the imposition is a tax; but if regulation is the primary purpose,the fact that revenue is incidentally raised does not make the imposition a tax.[30] (Emphasis supplied.)
Concededly, in the case of building permit fees imposed by the National Government under theNational Building Code, revenue is incidentally generated for the benefit of local government units.  Thus:
Section 208. Fees
Every Building Official shall keep a permanent record and accurate account of all fees and other charges fixed and authorized by the Secretary to be collected and received under this Code.
Subject to existing budgetary, accounting and auditing rules and regulations, the Building Official is hereby authorized to retain not more than twenty percent of his collection for the operating expenses of his office.
The remaining eighty percent shall be deposited with the provincial, city or municipal treasurer and shall accrue to the General Fund of the province, city or municipality concerned.
Petitioner’s reliance on Sec. 193 of the Local Government Code of 1991 is likewise misplaced. Said provision states:
SECTION 193.  Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges.  --  Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. (Emphasis supplied.)
            Considering that exemption from payment of regulatory fees was not among those “incentives” granted to petitioner under R.A. No. 6055, there is no such incentive that is retained under the Local Government Code of 1991.  Consequently, no reversible error was committed by the CA in ruling that petitioner is liable to pay the subject building permit and related fees.  
          Now, on petitioner’s claim that it is exempted from the payment of real property tax assessed against its real property presently occupied by informal settlers.
          Section 28(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides:
x x x x
(3) Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
x x x x  (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 234(b) of the Local Government Code of 1991 implements the foregoing constitutional provision by declaring that --
SECTION 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax.– The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax:
x x x x
(b) Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit or religious cemeteries and all lands, buildings, and improvements actually, directly, and exclusively usedfor religious, charitable or educational purposes;
x x x x  (Emphasis supplied.)
          In  Lung Center of the Philippines v. Quezon City,[31] this Court held  that only portions of the hospital actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes are exempt from real property taxes, while those portions leased to private entities and individuals are not exempt from such taxes. We explained the condition for the tax exemption privilege of charitable and educational institutions, as follows:
Under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions and Rep. Act No. 7160 in order to be entitled to the exemption, the petitioner is burdened to prove, by clear and unequivocal proof, that (a) it is a charitable institution; and (b) its real properties are ACTUALLYDIRECTLY and EXCLUSIVELY used for charitable purposes. “Exclusive” is defined as possessed and enjoyed to the exclusion of others; debarred from participation or enjoyment; and “exclusively” is defined, “in a manner to exclude; as enjoying a privilege exclusively.” If real property is used for one or more commercial purposes, it is not exclusively used for the exempted purposes but is subject to taxation. The words “dominant use” or “principal use” cannot be substituted for the words “used exclusively” without doing violence to the Constitutions and the law. Solely is synonymous with exclusively.
What is meant by actual, direct and exclusive use of the property for charitable purposes is the direct and immediate and actual application of the property itself to the purposes for which the charitable institution is organized. It is not the use of the income from the real property that is determinative of whether the property is used for tax-exempt purposes.[32] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
          Petitioner failed to discharge its burden to prove that its real property is actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes.  While there is no allegation or proof that petitioner leases the land to its present occupants, still there is no compliance with the constitutional and statutory requirement that said real property is actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes.  The respondents correctly assessed the land for real property taxes for the taxable period during which the land is not being devoted solely to petitioner’s educational activities.   Accordingly, the CA did not err in ruling that petitioner is likewise not entitled to a refund of the real property tax it paid under protest.
 x x x."