Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40344:g-r-no-119122-august-8,-2000-philippine-basketball-assoc-v-court-of-appeals,-et-al&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 19:15:01+00:00

Document:
PHILIPPINE BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.
On January 8, 1990, petitioner filed a petition for review 2 with the Court of Tax Appeals (respondent CTA) questioning the denial by respondent Commissioner of its tax protest.
Petitioner presented a motion for reconsideration 4 of the said decision but the same was denied by respondent CTA in a resolution 5 dated April 8, 1994. Thereafter and within the reglementary period for interposing appeals, petitioner appealed the CTA decision to the Court of Appeals.
On November 21, 1994, the Court of Appeals rendered its questioned Decision, 6 affirming the decision of the CTA and dismissing petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of said decision but to no avail. The same was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution 7 dated January 31, 1995. Hence, this petition.
"1.	Respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that the jurisdiction to collect amusement taxes of PBA games is vested in the national government to the exclusion of the local governments.
"2.	Respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that Section 13 of the Local Tax Code of 1973 limits local government units to theaters, cinematographs, concert halls, circuses and other places of amusement in the collection of the amusement tax.
"4.	Respondent Court of Appeals erred in giving retroactive effect to the revocation of Revenue Regulations 8-88.
"5.	Respondent Court of Appeals erred when it failed to consider the provisions of P.D. 851 the franchise of Petitioner, Section 8 of which provides that amusement tax on admission receipts of Petitioner is 5%.
"6.	Respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that the cession of advertising and streamer spaces in the venue to a third person is subject to amusement taxes.
1.	Is the amusement tax on admission tickets to PBA games a national or local tax? Otherwise put, who between the national government and local government should petitioner pay amusement taxes?
2.	Is the cession of advertising and streamer spaces to Vintage Enterprises, Inc. (VEI) subject to the payment of amusement tax?
3.	If ever petitioner is liable for the payment of deficiency amusement tax, is it liable to pay a seventy-five percent (75%) surcharge on the deficiency amount due?
The Court is not persuaded by petitioner’s asseverations.
‘The taxes imposed herein shall be payable at the end of each quarter and it shall be the duty of the proprietor, lessee, or operator concerned, as well as any party liable, within twenty days after the end of each quarter, to make a true and complete return of the amount of the gross receipts derived during the preceding quarter and pay the tax due thereon. If the tax is not paid within the time prescribed above, the amount of the tax shall be increased by twenty-five per centum, the increment to be part of the tax.
While Section 13 of the Local Tax Code mentions "other places of amusement", professional basketball games are definitely not within its scope. Under the principle of ejusdem generis, where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned. 9 Thus, in determining the meaning of the phrase "other places of amusement", one must refer to the prior enumeration of theaters, cinematographs, concert halls and circuses with artistic expression as their common characteristic. Professional basketball games do not fall under the same category as theaters, cinematographs, concert halls and circuses as the latter basically belong to artistic forms of entertainment while the former caters to sports and gaming.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the Decisions of the Court of Appeals and Court of Tax Appeals dated November 21, 1994 and December 24, 1993, respectively AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
Panganiban and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
Melo and Vitug, JJ., concur in the result.
1.	Penned by Associate Justice Pedro A. Ramirez and concurred by Associate Justices Quirino D. Abad Santos, Jr. and Eugenio S. Labitoria.
3.	CTA Decision penned by Associate Judge Ramon O. de Veyra and concurred by Presiding Judge Ernesto D. Acosta and Associate Judge Manuel K. Gruba; Rollo, pp. 70-78.
8.	See also BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 8-88.
9.	PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 402, 422 citing: Republic v. Migriño, 189 SCRA 289, 296-297.
e)	Thirty percent (30%) in the case of Jai-Alai and race tracks of their gross receipts, irrespective of whether or not any amount is charged for admission.
11.	SEC. 140. Amusement Tax. — (a) The province may levy an amusement tax to be collected from the proprietors, lessees, or operators of theaters, cinemas, concert halls, circuses, boxing stadia, and other places of amusement at a rate of not more than thirty percent (30%) of the gross receipts from admission fees.
(b)	In the case of theaters or cinemas, the tax shall first be deducted and withheld by their proprietors, lessees, or operators and the distributors of the cinematographic films.
(c)	The holding of operas, concerts, dramas, recitals, painting and art exhibitions, flower shows, musical programs, literary and oratorical presentations, except pop, rock, or similar concerts shall be exempt from the payment of the tax herein imposed.
(d)	The sangguniang panlalawigan may prescribe the time, manner, terms and conditions for the payment of tax. In case of fraud or failure to pay the tax, the sangguniang panlalawigan may impose such surcharges, interests and penalties as it may deem appropriate.
(e)	The proceeds from the amusement tax shall be shared equally by the province and the municipality where such amusement places are located.
14.	E. Rodriguez, Inc. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 28 SCRA 1119; United Christian Missionary Society v. Social Security Commission, 30 SCRA 982.
15.	Domingo v. Commission on Audit, 297 SCRA 163; Republic v. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 199.
16.	Ruby Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 445; Salao v. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 493; Heirs of Pascasio Uriarte v. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 511.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.