At bar is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking a review of the decision1 [Penned by Associate Justice Pedro A. Ramirez and concurred by Associate Justices Quirino D. Abad Santos, Jr. and Eugenio S. Labitoria.] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 34095 which affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 4419.

The facts that matter are as follows:

On June 21, 1989, the petitioner received an assessment letter from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (respondent Commissioner) for the payment of deficiency amusement tax computed thus:

On July 18, 1989, petitioner contested the assessment by filing a protest with respondent Commissioner who denied the same on November 6, 1989.

On January 8, 1990, petitioner filed a petition for review2 [Rollo, pp. 44-62.] with the Court of Tax Appeals (respondent CTA) questioning the denial by respondent Commissioner of its tax protest.

On December 24, 1993, respondent CTA dismissed petitioner’s petition, holding:

Petitioner presented a motion for reconsideration4 [Rollo, pp. 79-89.] of the said decision but the same was denied by respondent CTA in a resolution5 [Ibid., p. 90.] 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 [Ibid., pp. 33-40.] 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 Resolution7 [Ibid., p. 43.] dated January 31, 1995. Hence, this petition.

Undaunted, petitioner found its way to this Court via the present petition, contending that:

"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.

"3. Respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that Revenue Regulations No. 8-88 dated February 19, 1988 is an erroneous interpretation of law.

"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.

"7. Respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that the cession of advertising and streamer spaces inside the venue is embraced within the term ‘gross receipts’ as defined in Section 123 (6) of the Tax Code.

"8. Respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that the amusement tax liability of Petitioner is subject to a 75% surcharge."

The issues for resolution in this case may be simplified as follows:

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?

Petitioner contends that PD 231, otherwise known as the Local Tax Code of 1973, transferred the power and authority to levy and collect amusement taxes from the sale of admission tickets to places of amusement from the national government to the local governments. Petitioner cited BIR Memorandum Circular No. 49-73 providing that the power to levy and collect amusement tax on admission tickets was transferred to the local governments by virtue of the Local Tax Code; and BIR Ruling No. 231-86 which held that "the jurisdiction to levy amusement tax on gross receipts from admission tickets to places of amusement was transferred to local governments under P.D. No. 231, as amended."8 [See also BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 8-88.] Further, petitioner opined that even assuming arguendo that respondent Commissioner revoked BIR Ruling No. 231-86, the reversal, modification or revocation cannot be given retroactive effect since even as late as 1988 (BIR Memorandum Circular No. 8-88), respondent Commissioner still recognized the jurisdiction of local governments to collect amusement taxes.

The Court is not persuaded by petitioner’s asseverations.

The laws on the matter are succinct and clear and need no elaborate disquisition. Section 13 of the Local Tax Code provides:

The foregoing provision of law in point indicates that the province can only impose a tax on admission from the proprietors, lessees, or operators of theaters, cinematographs, concert halls, circuses and other places of amusement. The authority to tax professional basketball games is not therein included, as the same is expressly embraced in PD 1959, which amended PD 1456 thus:

From the foregoing it is clear that the "proprietor, lessee or operator of xxx professional basketball games" is required to pay an amusement tax equivalent to fifteen per centum (15%) of their gross receipts to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which payment is a national tax. The said payment of amusement tax is in lieu of all other percentage taxes of whatever nature and description.

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 [PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 402, 422 citing: Republic vs. Migriño, 189 SCRA 289, 296-297.] 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.

A historical analysis of pertinent laws does reveal the legislative intent to place professional basketball games within the ambit of a national tax. The Local Tax Code, which became effective on June 28, 1973, allowed the province to collect a tax on admission from the proprietors, lessees, or operators of theaters, cinematographs, concert halls, circuses and other places of amusement. On January 6, 1976, the operation of petitioner was placed under the supervision and regulation of the Games and Amusement Board by virtue of PD 871, with the proviso (Section 8) that "xxx all professional basketball games conducted by the Philippine Basketball Association shall only be subject to amusement tax of five per cent of the gross receipts from the sale of admission tickets." Then, on June 11, 1978, PD 1456 came into effect, increasing the amusement tax to ten per cent, with a categorical referral to PD 871, to wit, "[t]en per centum in the case of professional basketball games as envisioned in Presidential Decree No. 871 xxx." Later in 1984, PD 1959 increased the rate of amusement tax to fifteen percent by making reference also to PD 871. With the reference to PD 871 by PD 1456 and PD 1959, there is a recognition under the laws of this country that the amusement tax on professional basketball games is a national, and not a local, tax. Even up to the present, the category of amusement taxes on professional basketball games as a national tax remains the same. This is so provided under Section 12510 [SEC. 125. Amusement taxes. - There shall be collected from the proprietor, lessee or operator of cockpits, cabarets, night or day clubs, boxing exhibitions, professional basketball games, Jai-Alai and race tracks, a tax equivalent to:

The taxes imposed herein shall be payable at the end of each quarter or month and it shall be the duty of the proprietor, lessee or operator concerned, as well as any party liable, within twenty (20) 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. (Effective January 1, 1998)] of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code. Section 14011 [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.

(e) The proceeds from the amusement tax shall be shared equally by the province and the municipality where such amusement places are located.] of the Local Government Code of 1992 (Republic Act 7160), meanwhile, retained the areas (theaters, cinematographs, concert halls, circuses and other places of amusement) where the province may levy an amusement tax without including therein professional basketball games.

Likewise erroneous is the stance of petitioner that respondent Commissioner’s issuance of BIR Ruling No. 231-8612 ["xxx.....xxx.....xxx

xxx this Office is of the opinion and hereby holds that the jurisdiction to levy amusement tax on gross receipts from admission tickets to places of amusement was indeed transferred to local government under P.D. No. 231, as amended. xxx"] and BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 8-8813 ["xxx the sole jurisdiction for collection of amusement tax on admission receipts in places of admission rests exclusively on the local government to the exclusion of the national government."] -- both upholding the authority of the local government to collect amusement taxes -- should bind the government or that, if there is any revocation or modification of said rule, the same should operate prospectively.

It bears stressing that the government can never be in estoppel, particularly in matters involving taxes. It is a well-known rule that erroneous application and enforcement of the law by public officers do not preclude subsequent correct application of the statute, and that the Government is never estopped by mistake or error on the part of its agents.14 [E. Rodriguez, Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 28 SCRA 1119; United Christian Missionary Society vs. Social Security Commission, 30 SCRA 982.]

Untenable is the contention that income from the cession of streamer and advertising spaces to VEI is not subject to amusement tax. The questioned proviso may be found in Section 1 of PD 1456 which states:

The foregoing definition of gross receipts is broad enough to embrace the cession of advertising and streamer spaces as the same embraces all the receipts of the proprietor, lessee or operator of the amusement place. The law being clear, there is no need for an extended interpretation.15 [Domingo vs. Commission on Audit, 297 SCRA 163; Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 199.]

The last issue for resolution concerns the liability of petitioner for the payment of surcharge and interest on the deficiency amount due. Petitioner contends that it is not liable, as it acted in good faith, having relied upon the issuances of the respondent Commissioner. This issue must necessarily fail as the same has never been posed as an issue before the respondent court. Issues not raised in the court a quo cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.16 [Ruby Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 445; Salao vs. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 493; Heirs of Pascasio Uriarte vs. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 511.]

All things studiedly considered, the Court rules that the petitioner is liable to pay amusement tax to the national government, and not to the local government, in accordance with the rates prescribed by PD 1959.

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, (Chairman), and Vitug, JJ., in the result.