Republic of The Philippinnes v. Sunlie Assurance Company of Canada

3/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473
VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 129

Republic vs. Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada
*
G.R. No. 158085. October 14, 2005.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by the

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner,
vs. SUNLIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA,
respondent.
Taxation; Cooperatives; Words and Phrases; The Tax Code

defines a cooperative as an association “conducted by the members
thereof with the money collected from among themselves and solely
for their own protection and not for profit.”—The Tax Code defines
a cooperative as an association “conducted by the members
thereof with the money collected from among themselves and
solely for their own protection and not for profit.” Without a
doubt, respondent is a cooperative engaged in a mutual life
insurance business.
Commercial Law; Corporation Law; Insurance Law; A stock
insurance company doing business in the Philippines may “alter
its organization and transform itself into a mutual insurance
company.”—A stock insurance company doing business in the
Philippines may “alter its organization and transform itself into a
mutual insurance company.” Respondent has been mutualized or
converted from a stock life insurance company to a nonstock
mutual life insurance corporation pursuant to Section 266 of the
Insurance Code of 1978. On the basis of its bylaws, its ownership
has been vested in its member-policyholders who are each entitled
to one vote; and who, in turn, elect from among themselves the
members of its board of trustees. Being the governing body of a
nonstock corporation, the board exercises corporate powers, lays
down all corporate business policies, and assumes responsibility
for the efficiency of management.
Same; Same; Same; A mutual life insurance company is
conducted for the benefit of its member-policyholders, who pay into
its capital by way of premiums.—A mutual life insurance company
is conducted for the benefit of its member-policyholders, who pay
into its capital by way of premiums. To that extent, they are
responsible for the payment of all its losses. “The cash paid in for
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001709720596f2dcd4bca003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/23
premiums and the premium notes constitute their assets x x x.” In

the event that
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
130
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the company itself fails before the terms of the policies expire, the
member-policyholders do not acquire the status of creditors.
Rather, they simply become debtors for whatever premiums that
they have originally agreed to pay the company, if they have not
yet paid those amounts in full, for “[m]utual companies x x x
depend solely upon x x x premiums.” Only when the premiums
will have accumulated to a sum larger than that required to pay
for company losses will the member-policyholders be entitled to a
“pro rata division thereof as profits.”
Same; Same; Same; The rates of premium charged by a
mutual life insurance company is larger than might reasonably be
expected to carry the insurance, in order to constitute a margin of
safety. A mutual life insurance company has no capital stock and
relies solely upon its premiums to meet unexpected losses,
contingencies and expenses.—Where the insurance is taken at
cost, it is important that the rates of premium charged by a
mutual company be larger than might reasonably be expected to
carry the insurance, in order to constitute a margin of safety. The
table of mortality used will show an admittedly higher death rate
than will probably prevail; the assumed interest rate on the
investments of the company is made lower than is expected to be
realized; and the provision for contingencies and expenses, made
greater than would ordinarily be necessary. This course of action
is taken, because a mutual company has no capital stock and
relies solely upon its premiums to meet unexpected losses,
contingencies and expenses.
Same; Same; Same; Sharing in the common fund, any
member-policyholder may choose to withdraw dividends in cash or
to apply them in order to reduce a subsequent premium, purchase
additional insurance, or accelerate the payment period.—Sharing
in the common fund, any member-policyholder may choose to
withdraw dividends in cash or to apply them in order to reduce a
subsequent premium, purchase additional insurance, or

accelerate the payment period. Although the premium made at
the beginning of a year is more than necessary to provide for the
cost of carrying the insurance, the member-policyholder will
nevertheless receive the benefit of the overcharge by way of
dividends, at the end of the year when the cost is actually
ascertained. “The declaration of a dividend upon a policy reduces
pro tanto the cost of insurance to the holder of the policy. That is
its purpose and effect.”
131
VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 131
Same; Same; Same; A stipulated insurance premium “cannot

be increased, but may be lessened annually by so much as the
experience of the preceding year has determined it to have been
greater than the cost of carrying the insurance.”—A stipulated
insurance premium “cannot be increased, but may be lessened
annually by so much as the experience of the preceding year has
determined it to have been greater than the cost of carrying the
insurance x x x.” The difference between that premium and the
cost of carrying the risk of loss constitutes the so-called “dividend”
which, however, “is not in any real sense a dividend.” It is a
technical term that is well understood in the insurance business
to be widely different from that to which it is ordinarily attached.
Same; Same; Same; Dividend; The so-called “dividend” that is
received by member-policyholders is not a portion of profits set
aside for distribution to the stockholders in proportion to their
subscription to the capital stock of a corporation.—The so-called
“dividend” that is received by member-policyholders is not a
portion of profits set aside for distribution to the stockholders in
proportion to their subscription to the capital stock of a
corporation. One, a mutual company has no capital stock to which
subscription is necessary; there are no stockholders to speak of,
but only members. And, two, the amount they receive does not
partake of the nature of a profit or income. The quasi-appearance
of profit will not change its character. It remains an overpayment,
a benefit to which the member-policyholder is equitably entitled.
Same; Same; Same; Cooperatives; A mutual life insurance
corporation is a cooperative that promotes the welfare of its own
members. It does not operate for profit, but for the mutual benefit
of its member-policyholders.—A mutual life insurance corporation
is a cooperative that promotes the welfare of its own members. It
does not operate for profit, but for the mutual benefit of its
member-policyholders. They receive their insurance at cost, while

reasonably and properly guarding and maintaining the stability
and solvency of the company. “The economic benefits filter to the
cooperative members. Either equally or proportionally, they are
distributed among members in correlation with the resources of
the association utilized.”
Same; Same; Same; It does not follow that because respondent
is registered as a nonstock corporation and thus exists for a
purpose
132
other than profit, the company can no longer make any profits.
Earning profits is merely its secondary, not primary, purpose.—It
does not follow that because respondent is registered as a
nonstock corporation and thus exists for a purpose other than
profit, the company can no longer make any profits. Earning
profits is merely its secondary, not primary, purpose. In fact, it
may not lawfully engage in any business activity for profit, for to
do so would change or contradict its nature as a non-profit entity.
It may, however, invest its corporate funds in order to earn
additional income for paying its operating expenses and meeting
benefit claims. Any excess profit it obtains as an incident to its
operations can only be used, whenever necessary or proper, for
the furtherance of the purpose for which it was organized.
Same; Same; Same; Taxation; Cooperatives; Under the Tax
Code although respondent is a cooperative, registration with the
Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) is not necessary in
order for it to be exempt from the payment of both percentage taxes
on insurance premiums and documentary stamp taxes.—Under
the Tax Code although respondent is a cooperative, registration
with the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) is not
necessary in order for it to be exempt from the payment of both
percentage taxes on insurance premiums, under Section 121; and
documentary stamp taxes on policies of insurance or annuities it
grants, under Section 199.
Same; Same; Same; Cooperatives; Defined; Words and
Phrases; A cooperative company is a duly registered association of
persons, with a common bond of interest, who have voluntarily
joined together to achieve a lawful common social or economic end,
making equitable contributions to the capital required and
accepting a fair share of the risks and benefits of the undertaking
in accordance with universally accepted cooperative principles.—

As early as 1917, a cooperative company or association was
already defined as one “conducted by the members thereof with
money collected from among themselves and solely for their own
protection and not profit.” In 1990, it was further defined by the
Cooperative Code as a “duly registered association of persons,
with a common bond of interest, who have voluntarily joined
together to achieve a lawful common social or economic end,
making equitable contributions to the capital required and
accepting a fair share of the risks and benefits of the undertaking
in accordance with universally accepted cooperative principles.”
133
VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 133
Same; Same; Same; Same; Only cooperatives to be formed or

organized under the Cooperative Code needed registration with the
CDA. Respondent already existed before the passage of the new law
on cooperatives.—Only cooperatives to be formed or organized
under the Cooperative Code needed registration with the CDA.
Respondent already existed before the passage of the new law on
cooperatives. It was not even required to organize under the
Cooperative Code, not only because it performed a different set of
functions, but also because it did not operate to serve the same
objectives under the new law—particularly on productivity,
marketing and credit extension.
Same; Same; Same; Same; So long as respondent meets the
essential features of a cooperative enterprise, it does not even have
to use and carry the name of a cooperative to operate its mutual
life insurance business.—We have already determined that
respondent is a cooperative. The distinguishing feature of a
cooperative enterprise is the mutuality of cooperation among its
member-policyholders united for that purpose. So long as
respondent meets this essential feature, it does not even have to
use and carry the name of a cooperative to operate its mutual life
insurance business. Gratia argumenti that registration is
mandatory, it cannot deprive respondent of its tax exemption
privilege merely because it failed to register. The nature of its
operations is clear; its purpose well-defined. Exemption when
granted cannot prevail over administrative convenience.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The provisions of the Insurance
Code relative to the organization and operation of an insurance
company also apply to cooperative insurance entities organized
under the Cooperative Code. However, the latter law does not
apply to respondent, which already existed as a cooperative

company engaged in mutual life insurance prior to the passage of
that law.—True, the provisions of the Insurance Code relative to
the organization and operation of an insurance company also
apply to cooperative insurance entities organized under the
Cooperative Code. The latter law, however, does not apply to
respondent, which already existed as a cooperative company
engaged in mutual life insurance prior to the laws passage of that
law. The statutes prevailing at the time of its organization and
mutualization were the Insurance Code and the Corporation
Code, which imposed no registration requirement with the CDA.
134
Same; Same; Same; Taxation; Cooperatives; The Tax Code

exempts cooperative companies from the percentage tax on
insurance premiums and from the documentary stamp tax on
policies of insurance or annuities made or granted by cooperative
companies.—The Tax Code is clear. On the one hand, Section 121
of the Code exempts cooperative companies from the 5 percent
percentage tax on insurance premiums. On the other hand,
Section 199 also exempts from the DST, policies of insurance or
annuities made or granted by cooperative companies. Being a
cooperative, respondent is thus exempt from both types of taxes.
It is worthy to note that while RA 8424 amending the Tax Code
has deleted the income tax of 10 percent imposed upon the gross
investment income of mutual life insurance companies—domestic
and foreign—the provisions of Section 121 and 199 remain
unchanged.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for petitioner.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Having satisfactorily proven to the Court of Tax Appeals, to

the Court of Appeals and to this Court that it is a bona fide
cooperative, respondent is entitled to exemption from the
payment of taxes on life insurance premiums and
documentary stamps. Not being governed by the
Cooperative Code of the Philippines, it is not required to be
registered with the Cooperative Development Authority in
order to avail itself of the tax exemptions. Significantly,

neither the Tax Code nor the Insurance Code mandates
this administrative registration.
The Case
1
Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, seeking to nullify the January 23, 2003
Deci-
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 7-32.
135
VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 135

2 3
sion and the April 21, 2003 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 69125. The dispositive
portion of the Decision reads as follows:
4
“WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby DENIED.”
The Facts
The antecedents, as narrated by the CA, are as follows:
“Sun Life is a mutual life insurance company organized and

existing under the laws of Canada. It is registered and authorized
by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Insurance
Commission to engage in business in the Philippines as a mutual
life insurance company with principal office at Paseo de Roxas,
Legaspi Village, Makati City.
“On October 20, 1997, Sun Life filed with the [Commissioner of
Internal Revenue] (CIR) its insurance premium tax return for the
third quarter of 1997 and paid the premium tax in the amount of
P31,485,834.51. For the period covering August 21 to December
18, 1997, petitioner filed with the CIR its [documentary stamp tax
(DST)] declaration returns and paid the total amount of
P30,000,000.00.
“On December 29, 1997, the [Court of Tax Appeals] (CTA)
rendered its decision in Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. v. [CIR],
which held that mutual life insurance companies are purely
cooperative companies and are exempt from the payment of
premium tax and DST. This pronouncement was later affirmed by
this court in [CIR] v. Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. Sun

Life surmised that[,] being a mutual life insurance company, it
was likewise exempt from the payment of premium tax and DST.
Hence, on August 20, 1999, Sun Life filed with the CIR an
administrative claim for tax credit of its alleged erroneously paid
premium tax and DST for the aforestated tax periods.
_______________
2 Id., pp. 37-44. Thirteenth Division. Penned by Justice Oswaldo D.

Agcaoili (chair) and concurred in by Justices Eliezer R. de los Santos and
Regalado E. Maambong (members).
3 Id., p. 46.
4 CA Decision, p. 8; Rollo, p. 44.
136

“For failure of the CIR to act upon the administrative claim for
tax credit and with the 2-year period to file a claim for tax credit
or refund dwindling away and about to expire, Sun Life filed with
the CTA a petition for review on August 23, 1999. In its petition,
it prayed for the issuance of a tax credit certificate in the amount
of P61,485,834.51 representing P31,485,834.51 of erroneously
paid premium tax for the third quarter of 1997 and
P30,000[,000].00 of DST on policies of insurance from August 21
to December 18, 1997. Sun Life stood firm on its contention that it
is a mutual life insurance company vested with all the
characteristic features and elements of a cooperative company or
association as defined in [S]ection 121 of the Tax Code. Primarily,
the management and affairs of Sun Life were conducted by its
members; secondly, it is operated with money collected from its
members; and, lastly, it has for its purpose the mutual protection
of its members and not for profit or gain.
“In its answer, the CIR, then respondent, raised as special and
affirmative defenses the following:
‘7. Petitioner’s (Sun Life’s) alleged claim for refund is subject

to administrative routinary investigation/examination by
respondent’s (CIR’s) Bureau.
‘8. Petitioner must prove that it falls under the exception
provided for under Section 121 (now 123) of the Tax Code
to be exempted from premium tax and be entitled to the
refund sought.
‘9. Claims for tax refund/credit are construed strictly against
the claimants thereof as they are in the nature of
exemption from payment of tax.

‘10. In an action for tax credit/refund, the burden is upon the
taxpayer to establish its right thereto, and failure to
sustain this burden is fatal to said claim x x x.
‘11. It is incumbent upon petitioner to show that it has
complied with the provisions of Section 204[,] in relation
to Section 229, both in the 1997 Tax Code.’
“On November 12, 2002, the CTA found in favor of Sun Life.
Quoting largely from its earlier findings in Insular Life Assurance
Company, Ltd. v. [CIR], which it found to be on all fours with the
present action, the CTA ruled:
‘The [CA] has already spoken. It ruled that a mutual life insurance
company is a purely cooperative company[;] thus,
137
VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 137

exempted from the payment of premium and documentary stamp taxes.

Petitioner Sun Life is without doubt a mutual life insurance company. x x
x.
‘ x x x x x x x x x
‘Being similarly situated with Insular, Petitioner at bar is entitled to
the same interpretation given by this Court in the earlier cases of The
Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. vs. [CIR] (CTA Case Nos. 5336 and
5601) and by the [CA] in the case entitled [CIR] vs. The Insular Life
Assurance Company, Ltd., C.A. G.R. SP No. 46516, September 29, 1998.
Petitioner Sun Life as a mutual life insurance company is[,] therefore[,] a
cooperative company or association and is exempted from the payment of
premium tax and [DST] on policies of insurance pursuant to Section 121
(now Section 123) and Section 199[1]) (now Section 199[a]) of the Tax
Code.’
“Seeking reconsideration of the decision of the CTA, the CIR

argued that Sun Life ought to have registered, foremost, with the
Cooperative Development Authority before it could enjoy the
exemptions from premium tax and DST extended to purely
cooperative companies or associations under [S]ections 121 and
199 of the Tax Code. For its failure to register, it could not avail of
the exemptions prayed for. Moreover, the CIR alleged that Sun
Life failed to prove that ownership of the company was vested in
its members who are entitled to vote and elect the Board of
Trustees among [them]. The CIR further claimed that change in
the 1997 Tax Code subjecting mutual life insurance companies to
the regular corporate income tax rate reflected the legislature’s
recognition that these companies must be earning profits.
“Notwithstanding these arguments, the CTA denied the CIR’s

motion for reconsideration.
“Thwarted anew but nonetheless undaunted, the CIR comes to
this court via this petition on the sole ground that:
‘The Tax Court erred in granting the refund[,] because respondent does
not fall under the exception provided for under Section 121 (now 123) of
the Tax Code to be exempted from premium tax and DST and be entitled
to the refund.’
“The CIR repleads the arguments it raised with the CTA and
proposes further that the [CA] decision in [CIR] v. Insular Life
Assurance Company, Ltd. is not controlling and cannot constitute
res
138

judicata in the present action. At best, the pronouncements are

merely persuasive as the decisions of the
5
Supreme Court alone
have a universal and mandatory effect.”
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In upholding the CTA, the CA reasoned that respondent

was a purely cooperative corporation duly licensed to
engage in mutual life insurance business in the
Philippines. Thus, respondent was deemed exempt from
premium and documentary stamp taxes, because its affairs
are managed and conducted by its members with money
collected from among themselves, solely for their own
protection, and not for profit. Its members or policyholders
constituted both insurer and insured who contribute, by a
system of premiums or assessments, to the creation of a
fund from which all losses and liabilities were paid. The
dividends it distributed to them were not profits, but
returns of amounts that had been overcharged them for
insurance.
For having satisfactorily shown with substantial
evidence that it had erroneously paid and seasonably filed
its claim for premium and documentary stamp taxes,
respondent was entitled6 to a refund, the CA ruled.
Hence, this Petition.
The Issues
Petitioner raises the following issues for our consideration:
_______________
5 Id., pp. 1-4 & 37-40. Italics in the original.

6 This case was deemed submitted for decision on April 1, 2005, upon
this Court’s receipt of petitioner’s Memorandum, signed by Assistant
Solicitor General Nestor J. Ballacillo and Associate Solicitor Raymond
Joseph G. Javier. Respondent’s Memorandum, signed by Atty. Ma.
Emeren V. Vallente, was received by this Court on December 6, 2004.
139
VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 139

“I.
“Whether or not respondent is a purely cooperative company or

association under Section 121 of the National Internal Revenue
Code and a fraternal or beneficiary society, order or cooperative
company on the lodge system or local cooperation plan and
organized and conducted solely by the members thereof for the
exclusive benefit of each member and not for profit under Section
199 of the National Internal Revenue Code.
“II.
“Whether or not registration with the Cooperative

Development Authority is a sine qua non requirement to be
entitled to tax exemption.
“III.
“Whether or not respondent is exempted from payment7

of tax
on life insurance premiums and documentary stamp tax.”
We shall tackle the issues seriatim.
The Court’s Ruling
The Petition has no merit.
First Issue: Whether Respondent Is a Cooperative

The Tax Code defines a cooperative as an association
“conducted by the members thereof with the money
collected from among themselves8
and solely for their own
protection and not for profit.” Without a doubt, respondent
is a cooperative engaged in a mutual life insurance

business.
_______________
7 Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 11; Rollo, p. 384. Original in uppercase.

8 §121 of the National Internal Revenue Code prior to its amendment
by RA 8424.
140

First, it is managed by its members. Both the CA and the

CTA found that the management and affairs9 of respondent
were conducted by its member-policyholders.
A stock insurance company doing business in the
Philippines may “alter its organization
10
and transform itself
into a mutual insurance company.” Respondent has been
mutualized or converted from a stock life insurance 11
company to a nonstock mutual life insurance corporation 12
pursuant to Section 266 of the Insurance Code of 1978. On
the basis of its bylaws, its ownership has been vested in its
13
member-policyholders who are each entitled to one vote;
and who, in turn, elect from among 14
themselves the
members of its board of trustees. Being the governing
body of a nonstock corporation, the board exercises
corporate powers, lays down all corporate business policies,
and assumes 15
responsibility for the efficiency of
management.
Second, it is operated with money collected from its
members. Since respondent is composed entirely of
members who are also its policyholders, 16
all premiums
collected obviously come only from them.
_______________
9 CA Decision, p. 6; Rollo, p. 42; and CTA Decision, p. 7; Rollo, p. 57.

The affairs of mutual companies “are managed by the policyholders.”
Ohio Farmers Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 108 F
2d 665, 667, January 15, 1940, per Hamilton, Circuit J.
10 Last paragraph of §188 of the Insurance Code of 1978.
11 Art. 7 of respondent’s Amended Articles of Incorporation.
12 Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1460.
13 “Unless so limited, broadened or denied, each member, regardless of
class, shall be entitled to one vote.” 1st paragraph of §89 of Batas
Pambansa (BP) Blg. 68, otherwise known as “The Corporation Code of the
Philippines.”
14 “No person shall be elected as trustee unless he is a member of the
corporation.” 2nd paragraph of §92 of BP 68.
15 Campos, Jr. & Campos, The Corporation Code: Comments, Notes and
Selected Cases, Vol. I (1990), p. 340.
16 CA Decision, p. 6; Rollo, p. 42; and CTA Decision, p. 7; Rollo, p. 57.
141
VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 141

The member-policyholders
17
constitute “both insurer and
insured” who “contribute, by a system of premiums or
assessments, to the creation
18
of a fund from
19
which all losses
and liabilities are paid.” The premiums pooled into this
fund are earmarked for the payment of their indemnity and
benefit claims.
Third, it is licensed for the mutual protection of its
members, not for the profit of anyone.
As early as October 30, 1947, the director of commerce
had already issued a license to respondent—a corporation
organized and existing under the 20laws of Canada—to
engage in business in the Philippines. Pursuant to Section
225 of Canada’s Insurance Companies Act, the Canadian
minister of state (for finance and privatization) also
declared in its Amending Letters Patent that respondent
21
would be a mutual company effective June 1, 1992. In the
Philippines, the insurance commissioner also granted it
annual Certificates of Authority to transact life insurance
business, the most relevant
22
of which were dated July 1,
1997 and July 1, 1998.
A mutual life insurance company 23is conducted for the
benefit of its member-policyholders, who pay into its
capital by way of premiums. To that extent, 24
they are
responsible for the payment of all its losses. “The cash
paid in for premiums and
_______________
17 Keehn v. Hodge Drive-It-Yourself, Inc., 53 NE 2d 69, 71, July 19,

1943, per Hildebrant, J.
18 Minnick v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 174 A 2d
706, 709, October 9, 1961, per Storey, J.
19 A premium is the agreed price for assuming and carrying the risk of
insurance. De Leon, The Law on Insurance (with Insolvency Law), 10th ed.
(2003), p. 114.
20 Rollo, p. 97.
21 Id., p. 210.
22 Id., pp. 98-99.
23 Public Housing Administration v. Housing Authority of Bogalusa,
137 So. 2d 315, 321, February 19, 1962.
24 Ibid.
142

25
the premium notes constitute their assets x x x.” In the
event that the company itself fails before the terms of the
policies expire, the member-policyholders
26
do not acquire
the status of creditors. Rather, they simply become
debtors for whatever premiums that they have originally
agreed to pay the company, if they have not yet paid those
amounts in full, for “[m]utual 27
companies x x x depend
solely upon x x x premiums.” Only when the premiums
will have accumulated to a sum larger than that required
to pay for company losses will the member-policyholders
28
be
entitled to a “pro rata division thereof as profits.”
Contributing to its capital, the member-policyholders of 29
a mutual company are obviously also its owners.
Sustaining a dual relationship inter se, they not only
contribute to the payment 30of its losses, but are also31entitled
to a proportionate share and participate alike in its
profits and surplus.
Where the insurance is taken at cost, it is important
that the rates of premium charged by a mutual company be
larger than might reasonably be expected to carry the
insurance, in order to constitute a margin of safety. The
table of mortality used will show an admittedly higher
death rate than will probably prevail; the assumed interest
rate on the investments of the company is made lower than
is expected to be realized; and the provision for
contingencies and expenses,
_______________
25 Gleason v. Prudential Fire Insurance Co., 151 SW 1030, 1033,

December 19, 1912, per Green, J.
supra.
27 Ohio Farmers Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
supra.

supra, per McCaleb, J.
29 Ibid.
30 Keehn v. Hodge Drive-It-Yourself, Inc., supra.
supra.
143
VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 143

32
made greater than would ordinarily be necessary. This
course of action is taken, because a mutual company has no
capital stock and relies solely upon its premiums to meet
unexpected losses, contingencies and expenses.
Certainly, many factors are considered in calculating the
insurance premium. Since they vary with the kind of
insurance taken and with the group of policyholders
insured, any excess in the amount anticipated by a mutual
company to cover the cost of providing for the insurance
over its actual realized cost will also vary. If a member-
policyholder receives an excess payment, then the
apportionment must have been based upon a calculation of
the actual cost of insurance that the company has provided
for that particular member-policyholder. Accordingly, in
apportioning divisible surpluses, any mutual company uses
a contribution method that aims to distribute those
surpluses among its member-policyholders, in the same
proportion as they
33
have contributed to the surpluses by
their payments.
Sharing in the common fund, any member-policyholder
may choose to withdraw dividends in cash or to apply them
in order to reduce a subsequent premium, purchase
additional insurance, or accelerate the payment period.
Although the premium made at the beginning of a year is
more than necessary to provide for the cost of carrying the
insurance, the member-policyholder will nevertheless
receive the benefit of the overcharge by way of dividends, at
the end of the year when the cost is actually ascertained.
“The declaration of a dividend upon a policy reduces pro
tanto the cost of insurance34
to the holder of the policy. That
is its purpose and effect.”
_______________
32 Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. v. Herold, 198 F 199, 204, July 29,
1912.
33 Rhine v. New York Life Insurance Co., 6 NE 2d 74, 76-77, December

31, 1936.
34 Id., p. 78, December 31, 1936, per Lehman, J.
144

A stipulated insurance premium “cannot be increased, but

may be lessened annually by so much as the experience of
the preceding year has determined it to have been greater
35
than the cost of carrying the insurance x x x.” The
difference between that premium and the cost of carrying
the risk of loss constitutes the so-called “dividend”
36
which,
however, “is not in any real sense a dividend.” It is a
technical term that is well understood in the insurance
business to be widely different from that to which it is
ordinarily attached.
The so-called “dividend” that is received by member-
policyholders is not a portion of profits set aside for
distribution to the stockholders in proportion 37to their
subscription to the capital stock of a corporation. One, a
mutual company has no capital stock to which subscription
is necessary; there are no stockholders to speak of, but only
members. And, two, the amount they receive does not
partake of the nature of a profit or income. The quasi-
appearance of profit will not change its character. It
remains an overpayment, a benefit 38
to which the member-
policyholder is equitably entitled.
Verily, a mutual life insurance corporation is a
cooperative that promotes the welfare of its own members.
It does not operate for profit, but for the mutual benefit of
its member-policyholders. They receive their insurance at
cost, while reasonably and properly guarding and 39
maintaining the stability and solvency of the company.
“The economic benefits filter to the cooperative members.
Either equally or propor-
_______________
35 Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. v. Herold, id., pp. 204-205, per
Cross, District J.
36 Ibid.
Selected Cases, Vol. II (1990), p. 209.
38 Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. v. Herold, supra.
39 Ibid.
145
VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 145

tionally, they are distributed among members 40in

correlation with the resources of the association utilized.”
It does not follow that because respondent is registered
as a nonstock corporation and thus exists for a purpose
other than
41
profit, the company can no longer make any
profits. Earning profits is merely its secondary, not
primary, purpose. In fact, it may not lawfully engage in any
business activity for profit,
42
for to do so would 43change or
contradict its nature as a non-profit entity. It may,
however, invest its corporate funds in order to earn
additional income for paying its operating expenses and
meeting benefit claims. Any excess profit it obtains as an
incident to its operations can only be used, whenever
necessary or proper, for44 the furtherance of the purpose for
which it was organized.
Second Issue: Whether CDA Registration Is Necessary

Under the Tax Code although respondent is a cooperative,
registration
45
with the Cooperative Development Authority
(CDA) is not necessary in order for it to be exempt from
the payment of both percentage taxes on insurance
premiums, under Section 121; and documentary stamp
taxes on policies of insurance or annuities it grants, under
Section 199.
_______________
40 Nueva Ecija I Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. National Labor Relations

Commission, 380 Phil. 44, 58; 323 SCRA 86, 99, January 24, 2000, per
Quisumbing, J.
Selected Cases, Vol. I (1990), p. 44.
42 §14(2) of BP 68.
43 De Leon, The Law on Partnerships and Private Corporations (1985),
p. 401.
44 1st paragraph of §87 of BP 68.
45 The Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) is created under RA
6939. Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Torres, 350 Phil. 315,
318; 286 SCRA 666, 669, February 27, 1998.
146

First, the Tax Code does not require registration with the
CDA. No tax provision requires a mutual life insurance
company to register with that agency in order to enjoy
exemption from both percentage and documentary stamp
taxes.
A provision of Section 8 of Revenue Memorandum
Circular (RMC) No. 48-91 requires the submission
46
of the
Certificate of Registration with the CDA, before the
issuance of a tax exemption certificate. That provision
cannot prevail over the clear absence of an equivalent
requirement under the Tax Code. One, as we will explain
below, the Circular does not apply to respondent, but only
to cooperatives that need to be registered under the
Cooperative Code. Two, it is a mere issuance directing all
internal revenue officers to publicize a new tax legislation.
Although the Circular does not derogate from their
authority to implement47 the law, it cannot add a
registration requirement, when there is none under the
law to begin with.
Second, 48the provisions of the Cooperative Code of the
Philippines do not apply. Let us trace the Code’s
development in our history.
As early as 1917, a cooperative company or association
was already defined as one “conducted by the members
thereof with money collected from among themselves
49
and
solely for their own protection and not profit.” In 1990, it
was further defined by the Cooperative Code as a “duly
registered association of persons, with a common bond of
interest, who have
_______________
46 §8.1.b of Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 48-91.

47 De Leon, The Fundamentals of Taxation (12th ed., 1998), pp. 81-82.
48 On 10 March 1990, then President Corazon C. Aquino has signed
into law Republic Act (RA) No. 6938, otherwise known as “The
Cooperative Code of the Philippines. Camarines Norte Electric
Cooperative, Inc. v. Torres, supra.
49 La Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas v. Collector of Internal
Revenue, 48 Phil. 35, 44, September 26, 1925, per Johns, J. (citing §1505
of the Administrative Code of 1917).
147
VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 147

voluntarily joined together to achieve a lawful common

social or economic end, making equitable contributions to
the capital required and accepting a fair share of the risks
and benefits of the undertaking in accordance 50
with
universally accepted cooperative principles.”
The Cooperative Code was actually an offshoot of the old
law on cooperatives. In 1973, Presidential Decree (PD) No.
175 was signed into law by then President Ferdinand E. 51
Marcos in order to strengthen the cooperative movement.
The promotion of cooperative development was one of the
major programs of the “New Society” under his
administration. It sought to improve the country’s trade
and commerce by enhancing agricultural production,
cottage industries, community 52
development, and agrarian
reform through cooperatives.
The whole cooperative system, with its vertical and
horizontal linkages—from the market cooperative of
agricultural products to cooperative rural banks, consumer
cooperatives and cooperative insurance—was envisioned to
offer considerable economic
53
opportunities to people who
joined cooperatives. As an effective54
instrument in
redistributing income and wealth, cooperatives were
promoted primarily to support
55
the agrarian reform
program of the government.
Notably, the cooperative under PD 175 referred only to
an organization composed primarily of small producers and
consumers who voluntarily joined to form a business
enterprise 56that they themselves owned, controlled, and
patronized. The
_______________
50 Art. 3 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6938.

51 Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja, 165
SCRA 725, 732, September 26, 1988, per Gancayco, J.
52 Fajardo & Abella, Cooperative (Kilusang Bayan), 1981, p. 211.
53 Id., p. 213.
54 §1 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 175.
55 Fajardo & Abella, Cooperative (Kilusang Bayan); id., pp. 27 & 212;
and 1st paragraph of the Foreword of Clemente E. Terso, Jr., CESO II,
director of the Bureau of Cooperatives Development.
56 §2 of PD 175.
148

Bureau of Cooperatives Development—under the

Department of Local Government and 57Community
Development (later Ministry of Agriculture) —had the
authority to register, regulate and supervise only the
following cooperatives: (1) barrio associations involved in
the issuance of certificates of land transfer; (2) local or
primary cooperatives composed of natural persons and/or
barrio associations; (3) federations composed of
cooperatives that may or may not perform business
activities; and (4) unions of cooperatives
58
that did not
perform any business activities. Respondent does not fall
under any of the above-mentioned types of cooperatives
required to be registered under PD 175.
When the Cooperative Code was enacted years later, all
cooperatives that were registered under PD 175 and 59
previous laws were also deemed registered with the CDA.
Since respondent was not required to be registered under
the old law on cooperatives, it followed that it was not
required to be registered even under the new law.
Furthermore, only cooperatives to be formed or
organized under60 the Cooperative Code needed registration
with the CDA. Respondent already existed before the
passage of the new law on cooperatives. It was not even
required to organize under the Cooperative Code, not only
because it performed a different set of functions, but also
because it did not operate to serve the same objectives
under the new law—particularly 61
on productivity,
marketing and credit extension.
The insurance against losses of the members of a
cooperative referred to in Article 6(7) of the Cooperative
Code is not the same as the life insurance provided by
respondent to member-policyholders. The former is a
function of a service
_______________
57 Effective May 1, 1980. Fajardo & Abella, Cooperative (Kilusang

Bayan); id., p. 27.
58 Items 1 to 4 of §8(b) of PD 175.
59 Art. 128 of RA 6938.
60 Art. 16 of RA 6938.
61 Art. 7 of RA 6938.
149
VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 149

62
cooperative, the latter is not. Cooperative insurance under
the Code is limited in scope and local in character. It is not
the same as mutual life insurance.
We have already determined that respondent is a
cooperative.
63
The distinguishing feature of a cooperative
enterprise is the mutuality of cooperation64 among its
member-policyholders united for that purpose. So long as
respondent 65meets this essential feature, it does not even
have to use and carry the name of a cooperative to operate
its mutual life insurance business. Gratia argumenti that
registration is mandatory, it cannot deprive respondent of
its tax exemption privilege merely because it failed to
register. The nature of its operations is clear; its purpose
well-defined. Exemption when granted cannot prevail over
administrative convenience.
Third, not even the Insurance Code requires registration
with the CDA. The provisions of this Code primarily govern
insurance contracts; only if a particular matter in question
is not specifically provided for shall the provisions
66
of the
Civil Code on contracts and special laws govern.
True, the provisions of the Insurance Code relative to
the organization and operation of an insurance company
also apply to cooperative 67insurance entities organized
under the Cooperative Code. The latter law, however, does
not apply to respondent, which already existed as a
cooperative company engaged in mutual life insurance
prior to the laws passage of that law. The statutes
prevailing at the time of its organization and mutualization
were the Insurance Code and the
_______________
62 Art. 23(e) of RA 6938.

63 Minnick v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., supra.
supra.
65 Art. 124(1) of RA 6938.
66 De Leon, The Law on Insurance (with Insolvency Law); id., p. 1.
67 Art. 117 of RA 6938.
150

Corporation Code, which imposed no registration

requirement with the CDA.
Third Issue: Whether Respondent Is Exempted

from Premium Taxes and DST
Having determined that respondent is a cooperative that
does not have to be registered with the CDA, we hold that
it is entitled to exemption from both premium taxes and
documentary stamp taxes (DST).
The Tax Code is clear. On the one hand, Section 121 of
the Code exempts cooperative companies from the 5
percent percentage tax on insurance premiums. On the
other hand, Section 199 also exempts from the DST,
policies of insurance or annuities made or granted by
cooperative companies. Being a cooperative, respondent is
thus exempt from both types of taxes.
It is worthy to note that while RA 8424 amending the
Tax Code has deleted the income tax of 10 percent imposed
upon the gross investment
68
income of69mutual life insurance
companies—domestic and foreign —the 70
provisions of
Section 121 and 199 remain unchanged.
Having been seasonably filed and amply substantiated,
the claim for exemption in the amount of P61,485,834.51,
representing percentage taxes on insurance premiums and
documentary stamp taxes on policies of insurance or
annuities that were paid by respondent in 1997, is in order.
Thus, the grant of a tax credit certificate to respondent as
ordered by the appellate court was correct.
_______________
68 §24(d) of the Tax Code.

69 §25(a)(3) of the Tax Code.
70 In fact, §9 of RA 9243, signed into law by President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo only on February 17, 2004, retains §199(a) of the Tax
Code.
151
VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 151

Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. John Bordman
Ltd. of Iloilo, Inc.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED, and the

assailed Decision and Resolution are AFFIRMED. No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, Carpio-Morales and

Garcia, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, assailed decision and resolution

affirmed.
Notes.—Life and non-life insurance policies are subject

to documentary stamp taxes by their mere issuance, and
the fact that the policies have not become effective for non-
payment of the corresponding premiums cannot affect the
insurance company’s liability for payment of documentary
stamp taxes. (Philippine Home Assurance Corporation vs.
Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 443 [1999])
Any claim for tax exemption is strictly construed against
the claimant. (Light Rail Transit Authority vs. Central
Board of Assessment Appeals, 342 SCRA 692 [2000])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Republic of The Philippinnes v. Sunlie Assurance Company of Canada

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of The Philippinnes v. Sunlie Assurance Company of Canada

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of The Philippinnes v. Sunlie Assurance Company of Canada

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 473

VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 129

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by the

Taxation; Cooperatives; Words and Phrases; The Tax Code

premiums and the premium notes constitute their assets x x x.” In

130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada

subsequent premium, purchase additional insurance, or

VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 131

Republic vs. Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada

Same; Same; Same; A stipulated insurance premium “cannot

member-policyholders. They receive their insurance at cost, while

132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada

in accordance with universally accepted cooperative principles.—

VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 133

Republic vs. Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada

Same; Same; Same; Same; Only cooperatives to be formed or

apply to respondent, which already existed as a cooperative

134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada

Same; Same; Same; Taxation; Cooperatives; The Tax Code

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Having satisfactorily proven to the Court of Tax Appeals, to

order to avail itself of the tax exemptions. Significantly,

1 Rollo, pp. 7-32.

VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 135

The antecedents, as narrated by the CA, are as follows:

“Sun Life is a mutual life insurance company organized and

this court in [CIR] v. Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. Sun

2 Id., pp. 37-44. Thirteenth Division. Penned by Justice Oswaldo D.

136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

‘7. Petitioner’s (Sun Life’s) alleged claim for refund is subject

exemption from payment of tax.

VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 137

exempted from the payment of premium and documentary stamp taxes.

“Seeking reconsideration of the decision of the CTA, the CIR

“Notwithstanding these arguments, the CTA denied the CIR’s

138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

judicata in the present action. At best, the pronouncements are

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In upholding the CTA, the CA reasoned that respondent

Petitioner raises the following issues for our consideration:

5 Id., pp. 1-4 & 37-40. Italics in the original.

VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 139

“Whether or not respondent is a purely cooperative company or

“Whether or not registration with the Cooperative

“Whether or not respondent is exempted from payment7

We shall tackle the issues seriatim.

The Court’s Ruling

The Petition has no merit.

First Issue: Whether Respondent Is a Cooperative

is a cooperative engaged in a mutual life insurance

7 Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 11; Rollo, p. 384. Original in uppercase.

140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

First, it is managed by its members. Both the CA and the

9 CA Decision, p. 6; Rollo, p. 42; and CTA Decision, p. 7; Rollo, p. 57.

VOL. 473, OCTOBER 14, 2005 141