73. British American Tobacco vs.

Camacho 562 SCRA The trial court also lifted the writ of preliminary
511 , August 20, 2008 injunction.

Facts: By way of intervention, Fortune Tobacco claimed that the

RA 8240, entitled "An Act Amending Sections 138, 139,
140, and 142 of the NIRC, as Amended and For Other
Purposes", took effect on January 1, 1997.
In the same year, Congress passed RA 8424 or The Tax
Reform Act of 1997, re-codifying the NIRC.
challenge to the validity of the BIR issuances should have
brought by petitioner before the CTA, and not the RTC
because it is the CTA which has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over decisions of the BIR in tax disputes.
Issue: does the CTA have jurisdiction over the case?

Section 142 was renumbered as Section 145 of the NIRC. Held: no

Paragraph (c) of Section 145 provides for four tiers of tax
rates based on the net retail price per pack of cigarettes.
To determine the applicable tax rates of existing cigarette
brands, a survey of the net retail prices per pack of
cigarettes was conducted
As such, new brands of cigarettes shall be taxed according
to their current net retail price while existing or "old"
brands shall be taxed based on their net retail price as of
October 1, 1996.
To implement RA 8240, the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) issued Revenue Regulations No. 1-97, which
classified the existing brands of cigarettes as those duly
registered or active brands prior to January 1, 1997.
New brands, or those registered after January 1, 1997,
shall be initially assessed at their suggested retail price
until such time that the appropriate survey to determine
their current net retail price is conducted.
What is assailed is the validity and constitutionality of a
law, or a rule or regulation issued by the administrative
agency in the performance of its quasi-legislative function,
the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the same.
Hence the determination of whether a specific rule or set
of rules issued by an administrative agency contravenes
the law or the constitution, is within the jurisdiction of the
regular courts
While Sec 7 of RA 1125, as amended, confers n the CTA
jurisdiction to resolve tax disputes in general, this does not
include cases where the constitutionality of a law or rule is
challenged
Thus petitioner properly filed the subject case before the
RTC.

petitioner British American Tobacco introduced into the

market Lucky Strike Filter, Lucky Strike Lights and Lucky
Strike Menthol Lights cigarettes, with a suggested retail
price of P9.90 per pack. Pursuant to Sec. 145 (c) quoted
above, the Lucky Strike brands

were initially assessed the excise tax at P8.96 per pack.

petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of

Makati, a petition for injunction with prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or
writ of preliminary injunction.

PETITIONERS CONTENTION
1. Said petition sought to enjoin the implementation
of Section 145 of the NIRC, Revenue Regulations
Nos. 1-97, 9-2003, 22-2003 and Revenue
Memorandum Order No. 6-2003 on the ground
that they discriminate against new brands of
cigarettes, in violation of the equal protection and
uniformity provisions of the Constitution.

2. RR 9-2003 is invalid insofar as they empower the

BIR to reclassify and update the brand
classification of new brans every 2 years or earlier

the trial court rendered a decision upholding the

constitutionality of Section 145 of the NIRC, Revenue
Regulations Nos. 1-97, 9-2003, 22-2003 and Revenue
Memorandum Order No. 6-2003.