SECOND DIVISION

BICOLANDIA DRUG CORPORATION G.R. No. 142299

(FORMERLY ELMAS DRUG
COPRORATION), Present:
Petitioner,
PUNO, J., Chairperson,
versus - SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CORONA,
AZCUNA, and
GARCIA, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Promulgated:
Respondent.
June 22, 2006
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
This is a petition for review[1] by Bicolandia Drug Corporation, formerly known as Elmas Drug
Corporation, seeking the nullification of the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals,
dated October 19, 1999 and February 18, 2000, respectively, in CA-G.R SP No. 49946
entitled Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Elmas Drug Corporation.
The controversy primarily involves the proper interpretation of the term cost in
Section 4 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7432, otherwise known as An Act to Maximize the
Contribution
of
Senior
Citizens
to Nation
Building, Grant Benefits and Special Privileges and for Other Purposes.
The facts[2] of the case are as follows:
Petitioner Bicolandia Drug Corporation is a domestic corporation principally engaged in the
retail of pharmaceutical products. Petitioner has a drugstore located in Naga Cityunder the
name and business style of Mercury Drug.
Pursuant to the provisions of R.A. No. 7432, entitled An Act to Maximize the Contribution of
Senior Citizens to Nation Building, Grant Benefits and Special Privileges and for Other
Purposes, also known as the Senior Citizens Act, and Revenue Regulations No. 2-94,
petitioner granted to qualified senior citizens a 20% sales discount on their purchase of
medicines covering the period from July 19, 1993 to December 31, 1994.
When petitioner filed its corresponding corporate annual income tax returns for taxable
years 1993 and 1994, it claimed as a deduction from its gross income the respective
amounts of P80,330 and P515,000 representing the 20% sales discount it granted to senior
citizens.
On March 28, 1995, however, alleging error in the computation and claiming that the
aforementioned 20% sales discount should have been treated as a tax credit pursuant to
R.A. No. 7432 instead of a deduction from gross income, petitioner filed a claim for refund or

credit of overpaid income tax for 1993 and 1994, amounting to P52,215 and P334,750,
respectively. Petitioner computed the overpayment as follows:
Income tax benefit of tax credit 100%
Income tax benefit of tax deduction 35%
Differential 65%
For 1993
20% discount granted in 1993 P80,330
Multiply by 65% x 65%
Overpaid corporate income tax P52,215
For 1994
20% discount granted in 1993 P515,000
Multiply by 65% x 65%
Overpaid corporate income tax P334,750
On December 29, 1995, petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals
(CTA) in order to toll the running of the two-year prescriptive period for claiming for a tax
refund under Section 230, now Section 229, of the Tax Code.
It contended that Section 4 of R.A. No. 7432 provides in clear and unequivocal language that
discounts granted to senior citizens may be claimed as a tax credit. Revenue Regulations No.
2-94, therefore, which is merely an implementing regulation cannot modify, alter or depart
from the clear mandate of Section 4 of R.A. No. 7432, and, thus, is null and void for being
inconsistent with the very statute it seeks to implement.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, on the other hand, maintained that the aforesaid
section providing for a 20% sales discount to senior citizens is a misnomer as it runs counter
to the solemn duty of the government to collect taxes. The Commissioner likewise pointed
out that the provision in question employs the word may, thereby implying that the
availability of the remedy of tax credit is not absolute and mandatory and it does not confer
an absolute right on the taxpayer to avail of the tax credit scheme if he so chooses. The
Commissioner further stated that in statutory construction, the contemporaneous
construction of a statute by executive officers of the government whose duty is to execute it
is entitled to great respect and should ordinarily control in its interpretation.
Thus, addressing the matter of the proper construction of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 7432
regarding the treatment of the 20% sales discount given to senior citizens on their medicine
purchases, the CTA ruled on the issue of whether or not the discount should be deductible
from gross sales of value-added tax or other percentage tax purposes as prescribed under
Revenue Regulations No. 2-94 or as a tax credit deductible from the tax due.
In its Decision, dated August 27, 1998, the CTA declared that:
xxx
Revenue Regulations No. 2-94 gave a new meaning to the phrase tax
credit, interpreting it to mean that the 20% discount granted to qualified
senior citizens is an amount deductible from the establishments gross
sales, which is completely contradictory to the literal or widely accepted
meaning of the said phrase, as an amount subtracted from an individuals or
entitys tax liability to arrive at the total tax liability (Blacks Law Dictionary).

In view of such apparent discrepancy in the interpretation of the term

tax credit, the provisions of the law under R.A. 7432 should prevail over the
subordinate regulation issued by the respondent under Revenue Regulation
No. 2-94. x x x
Having settled the legal issue involved in the case at bar, We are now
tasked to resolve the factual issues of whether or not petitioner is entitled to
the claim for refund of its overpaid income taxes for the years 1993 and 1994
based on the evidence at hand.
Contrary to the findings of the independent CPA, aside from the
unverifiable 20% sales discounts in the amount of P18,653.70 (Exh. R-3), the
Court noted some material discrepancies. Not all the details listed in the 1994
Summary of Sales and Discounts Given to Senior Citizens correspond with the
cash slips presented. There are various sales discounts granted which were
not properly computed and there were also some cash slips left unsigned by
the buyers.
xxx
After a careful scrutiny of the documents presented, the Court, allows
only the amount of sales discounts duly supported by the pre-marked cash
slips x x x.
Hence, only the above amounts which are properly documented can be
used as base in computing for the cost of 20% discount as tax credit. The
overpaid income tax therefore is computed as follows: [3]
For 1993
Net Sales P31,080,508.00
Add: 20% Discount to Senior Citizens 80,330.00
Gross Sales P31,160,838.00
Less: Cost of Sales
Merchandise Inventory, beg. P 4,226,588.00
Add Purchases 29,234,361.00
Total Goods available for Sale P33,460,947.00
Less: Merchandise Inventory, End P 4,875.944.00 P28,585,003.00
Gross Income P 2,575,835.00
Less: Operating Expenses 1,706,491.00
Net Operating Income P 869,344.00
Add: Miscellaneous Income 72,680.00
Net Income P 942,024.00
Less: Interest Income Subject to Final Tax 21,140.00
Net Taxable Income P 920,884.00
Tax Due (P920,884 x 35%) P 322,309.40
Less: 1) Tax Credit (Cost of 20% Discount)
[(28,585,003.00/31,160,838.00)
x 80,330.34] P 73,690.03
2) Income Tax Payment for the Year 294,194.00 P 367,884.03
AMOUNT REFUNDABLE P 45,574.63
For 1994

Net Sales P 29,904,734.00

Add: 20% Discount to Senior Citizens 515,000.00
Gross Sales P 30,419,734.00
Less: Cost of Sales
Merchandise Inventory, beg. P 4,875,944.00
Add Purchases 28,138,103.00
Total Goods available for Sales P 33,014,047.00
Less: Merchandise Inventory, End 5,036.117.00 27,977,930.00
Gross Income P 2,441,804.00
Less: Operating Expenses 1,880,153.00
Net Operating Income P 561,651.00
Add: Miscellaneous Income 82,207.00
Net Income P 643,858.00
Less: Interest Income Subject to Final Tax 30,618.00
Net Taxable Income P 613,240.00
Tax Due (613,240 x 35%) P 214,634.00
Less: 1) Tax Credit (Cost of 20% Discount)
[(28,585,003.00/31,160,838.00) x
80,330.34] P316,156.48
2) Income Tax Payment for the Year 34,384.00 P 350,540.48
AMOUNT REFUNDABLE P 135,906.48
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, petitioners claim for refund is
hereby partially GRANTED. Respondent is hereby ORDERED to REFUND, or in
the alternative, to ISSUE a tax credit certificate in favor of the petitioner the
amounts of P45,574.63 and P135,906.48, representing overpaid income tax
for the years 1993 and 1994, respectively.
SO ORDERED.[4]
Both the Commissioner and petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the above
decision. Petitioner, in its Motion for Partial Reconsideration, claimed that the cost that
private establishments may claim as tax credit under Section 4 of R.A. No. 7432 should be
construed to mean the full amount of the 20% sales discount granted to senior citizens
instead of the formula --[Tax Credit = Cost of Sales/Gross Sales x 20% discount] used by the
CTA in computing for the amount of the tax credit. In view of this, petitioner prayed for the
refund of the amount of income tax it allegedly overpaid in the aggregate amount
of P45,574.63 and P135,906.48, respectively, for the taxable years 1993 and 1994 as a
result of treating the sales discount of 20% as a tax deduction rather than as a tax credit.
The Commissioner, on the other hand, moved for a re-computation of petitioners tax
liability averring that the sales discount of 20% should be deducted from gross income to
arrive at the taxable income. Such discount cannot be considered a tax credit because the
latter, being in the nature of a tax refund, is treated as a return of tax payments erroneously
or
excessively
assessed and collected as provided under Section 204(3) of the Tax Code, to wit:
(3) x x x No credit or refund of taxes or penalties shall be allowed
unless the taxpayer files in writing with the Commissioner a claim for credit or
refund within two (2) years after the payment of the tax or penalty.

In its Resolution, dated December 7, 1998, the CTA modified its earlier decision, thus:
ACCORDINGLY, the petitioners Motion for Partial Reconsideration is
hereby GRANTED. Respondent is hereby ORDERED to ISSUE tax credit
certificates in favor of petitioner [in] the amounts of P45,574.63 and
P135,906.48 representing overpaid income tax for the years 1993 and 1994,
as prayed for in its motion. On the other hand, the Respondents Motion for
Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Consequently, the Commissioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals asking
for the reversal of the CTA Decision and Resolution.
The Court of Appeals rendered its assailed Decision on October 19, 1999, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the petition is hereby
GRANTED IN PART. The resolution issued by the Court of Tax Appeals dated
December [7], 1998 is SET ASIDE and the Decision rendered by the latter is
AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.[6]
Hence, this petition positing that:
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT IN COMPUTING THE TAX
CREDIT TO BE ALLOWED PETITIONER FOR DISCOUNTS GRANTED TO SENIOR
CITIZENS ON THEIR PURCHASE OF MEDICINES, THE ACQUISITION COST
RATHER THAN THE ACTUAL DISCOUNT GRANTED TO SENIOR CITIZENS
SHOULD BE THE BASIS.[7]
Otherwise stated, the matter to be determined is the amount of tax credit that may be
claimed by a taxable entity which grants a 20% sales discount to qualified senior citizens on
their purchase of medicines pursuant to Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 7432 which states:
Sec. 4. Privileges for the Senior citizens. The senior citizens shall be entitled to
the following:
a)

the grant of twenty percent (20%) discount from all

establishments relative to utilization of transportation services, hotels
and similar lodging establishments, restaurants and recreation centers
and purchase of medicines anywhere in the country: Provided, That
private establishments may claim the cost[8] as tax credit.

The term cost in the above provision refers to the amount of the 20% discount
extended by a private establishment to senior citizens in their purchase of medicines. This
amount shall be applied as a tax credit, and may be deducted from the tax liability of the
entity concerned. If there is no current tax due or the establishment reports a net loss for
the period, the credit may be carried over to the succeeding taxable year. This is in line with

the interpretation of this Court in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Central Luzon Drug
Corporation[9] wherein it affirmed that R.A. No. 7432 allows private establishments to claim
as tax credit the amount of discounts they grant to senior citizens.
The Court notes that petitioner, while praying for the reinstatement of the CTA
Resolution, dated December 7, 1998, directing the issuance of tax certificates in favor of
petitioner for the respective amounts of P45,574.63 and P135,906.48 representing overpaid
income tax for 1993 and 1994, asks for the refund of the same. [10]
In this regard, petitioners claim for refund must be denied. The law expressly
provides that the discount given to senior citizens may be claimed as a tax credit, and not a
refund. Thus, where the words of a statute are clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must
be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. [11]
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals, dated October 19, 1999 and February 18, 2000, respectively, in CA-G.R SP
No. 49946 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals,
dated December 7, 1998, directing the issuance of tax credit certificates in favor of
petitioner in the amounts of P45,574.63 and P135,906.48 is hereby REINSTATED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.