PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR) vs.

THE
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE (BIR)
G.R. No. 172087
March 15, 2011
FACTS: PAGCOR was created pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1067-A on January 1,
1977. On January 1, 1998, R.A. No. 8424, otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue
Code of 1997, took effect. Section 27 (c) of R.A. No. 8424 provides that government-owned and
controlled corporations (GOCCs) shall pay corporate income tax, except petitioner PAGCOR,
the Government Service and Insurance Corporation, the Social Security System, the Philippine
Health Insurance Corporation, and the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office.
With the enactment of R.A. No. 9337 on May 24, 2005, certain sections of the National
Internal Revenue Code of 1997 were amended. The particular amendment that is at issue in this
case is Section 1 of R.A. No. 9337, which amended Section 27 (c) of the National Internal
Revenue Code of 1997 by excluding PAGCOR from the enumeration of GOCCs that are exempt
from payment of corporate income tax. Several petitions were filed as against R.A. No. 9337. On
September 1, 2005, the the Court dismissed all the petitions and upheld the constitutionality of
R.A. No. 9337. On the same date, respondent BIR issued Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 16-2005, specifically identifying PAGCOR as one of the franchisees subject to 10% VAT imposed
under Section 108 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended by R.A. No.
9337.
ISSUE: Whether or not PAGCOR is still exempt from corporate income tax and VAT with the
enactment of R.A. No. 9337.
HELD/DOCTRINE:
Taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. The burden of proof rests upon the party
claiming exemption to prove that it is, in fact, covered by the exemption so claimed. As a rule,
tax exemptions are construed strongly against the claimant. Exemptions must be shown to exist
clearly and categorically, and supported by clear legal provision.
In this case, PAGCOR failed to prove that it is still exempt from the payment of corporate
income tax, considering that Section 1 of R.A. No. 9337 amended Section 27 (c) of the National
Internal Revenue Code of 1997 by omitting PAGCOR from the exemption. The legislative intent,
as shown by the discussions in the Bicameral Conference Meeting, is to require PAGCOR to pay
corporate income tax; hence, the omission or removal of PAGCOR from exemption from the
payment of corporate income tax. It is a basic precept of statutory construction that the express
mention of one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others as expressed in the familiar
maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Thus, the express mention of the GOCCs exempted
from payment of corporate income tax excludes all others. Not being excepted, petitioner
PAGCOR must be regarded as coming within the purview of the general rule that GOCCs shall
pay corporate income tax, expressed in the maxim: exceptio firmat regulam in casibus non
exceptis.
Anent the validity of RR No. 16-2005, the Court holds that the provision subjecting

PAGCOR to 10% VAT is invalid for being contrary to R.A. No. 9337. Nowhere in R.A. No. 9337
is it provided that petitioner can be subjected to VAT. R.A. No. 9337 is clear only as to the
removal of petitioner's exemption from the payment of corporate income tax.