Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Third Division
SPC REALTY CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
CTAACNO. 77
(Civil Case No. 06-7957)
Members:
BAUTISTA, Chairperson
PALANCA-ENRIQUEZ, and
COTANGCO-MANALASTAS, lL.
-versus-
MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF
CAINTA,
Respondent.
~ I!J 11
a.,._. .
)(-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)(
DECISION
BAUTISTA,[.:
The Petition for Review,l filed pursuant to Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 8 of the
Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, seeks the review of the Decision
rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 73, Antipolo City, dated March 11,
2010, dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction;2 and the Order dated February 25,
2011, denying its Motion for Reconsideration.3
DECISION
CTAACN0. 77
Page 2 of 14
DECISION
CTAACN0. 77
Page 3 of 14
' Id , at
P::~::i~:~~~~n May 12, 2011, petitioner filed fue present Petition for Re~
DECISION
O'AACN0. 77
Page 4 of 14
On October 13, 2011, respondent filed its Comment (Re: Petitioner's Petition
for Review).
And on November 2, 2011, petitioner filed by registered mail its Reply.
On January 13, 2012, the case was deemed submitted for decision, taking into
consideration petitioner's Memorandum filed on December 5, 2011,10 and
respondent's Memorandum filed on January 11,2012.11
Hence, this Decision.
Issues
The Petition for Review assigns the following errors:
I.
II.
III.
Petitioner's Arguments
Petitioner claims that it has duly complied with the requirements under
Section 195 of the Local Government Code. It avers that it filed a judicial action
before the RTC only after the receipt of the denial of its protest on the assessment
10
11
DECISION
CTAACN0.77
Page 5 of14
Respondent's Counter-arguments
On the other hand, respondent counters that since the assessment against
petitioner involves taxes over its realty property and/ or realty business, the
provisions of Sections 226 and 229 of the Local Government Code may be applicable.
With petitioner's direct resort to the RTC, without exhausting all administrative
remedies, respondent, thus, submits that the RTC has no jurisdiction to entertain the
case.
DECISION
CTAACNO. 77
Page 6 of 14
Respondent responds as well that even arguing that Section 195 of the Local
Government Code is the applicable remedy, petitioner failed to comply with the said
provision for instead of appealing the denial of its protest, it went directly to the
RTC by way of a Petition for Review, which is a wrong mode of appeal.
Respondent also maintains that the imposition of realty business taxes against
petitioner is pursuant to Section 150 of the Local Government Code, and opinions
rendered by the Bureau of Local Government Finance - Department of Finance
regarding on the "situs of taxation."
Respondent further disputes that the assessment for the years 1999 and 2000
had prescribed; petitioner's apparent intention to evade the payment of taxes
justifies the application of the ten (10)-year period to assess and collect the same.
Respondent lastly submits that for the sake of argument that the RTC erred in
dismissing the case, the same should be remanded to the court a quo for further
proceedings so as to determine and appreciate the entire merits of the case.
DECISION
CTAACN0. 77
Page 7 of14
DECISION
CTAACN0.77
Page 8 of14
property may, within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the
written notice of assessment, appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals
of the provincial or city by filing a petition under oath in the form
prescribed for the purpose, together with copies of the tax declarations
and such affidavits or documents submitted in support of the appeal.
XXX
XXX
XXX
DECISION
CfAACN0. 77
Page 9 of 14
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
J.
DECISION
CTAACN0. 77
Page 10 of14
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
(d) On retailers,
XXX
XXX
XXX
DECISION
CTAACN0.77
Page 11 of14
From the foregoing, respondent is assessing petitioner for local business taxes,
and not for real property taxes. Therefore, the procedures prescribed under Sections
226 and 229 of the 1991 LGC cannot be made to apply to the case at bench.
Accordingly and as correctly maintained by petitioner, Section 195 of the 1991
LGC provides for the following remedies, to quote:
SECTION 195. Protest of Assessment. - When the local treasurer or
his duly authorized representative finds that correct taxes, fees, or charges
have not been paid, he shall issue a notice of assessment stating the nature
of the tax, fee, or charge, the amount of deficiency, the surcharges,
interests and penalties. Within sixty (60) days from the receipt of the
notice of assessment, the taxpayer may file a written protest with the local
treasurer contesting the assessment; otherwise, the assessment shall
become final and executory. The local treasurer shall decide the protest
within sixty (60) days from the time of its filing. If the local treasurer
finds the protest to be wholly or partly meritorious, he shall issue a notice
cancelling wholly or partially the assessment. However, if the local
treasurer finds the assessment to be wholly or partly correct, he shall
deny the protest wholly or partly with notice to the taxpayer. The
taxpayer shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of the denial of the
protest or from the lapse of the sixty (60) day period prescribed herein
within which to appeal with the court of competent jurisdiction otherwise
the assessment becomes conclusive and unappealable.
The above-quoted provision states that the taxpayer has sixty (60) days from
receipt of the notice of assessment to file a written protest; while the local treasurer,
on the other hand, has sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the protest within
which to decide the same. The provision, further, provides that the taxpayer has
thirty (30) days, either from the receipt of the denial of the protest, or from the lapse
of the sixty (60)-day period prescribed for the local treasurer to decide on the protest,
DECISION
CfAACNO. 77
Page 12 o14
~1,945,202.9 7,
on
September 12, 2005;15 counting sixty (60) days from said date, petitioner had until
November 11, 2005, within which to file its protest on the subject assessment.
However, petitioner failed to file any protest, and it was only on December 29,
2005, that Finance and Accounting Manager, Emiliano L. Gutierrez, Jr., of Alcan
Packaging Starpack Corporation, the lessee of the subject property of petitioner, who
filed a letter addressed to respondent, in response to the assessment.16
In accordance with Section 195 of the 1991 LGC, that "within sixty (60) days
from the receipt of the notice of assessment, the taxpayer may file a written protest
with the local treasurer contesting the assessment; otherwise, the assessment shall
become final and executory," as a result therefore, for failure of petitioner to timely
contest the assessment, the same has become final and executory.
In the case of Romulo San Juan v. Ricardo Castro, in his capacity as City Treasurer
of Marikina CityP the High Court ruled that a taxpayer who disagrees with a tax
assessment made by a local treasurer may file a written protest thereof in accordance
1s
16
17
18
Ibid., citing Emesto D. Acosta and Jose C. Vitug, TAX LAW AND JUR ISPRUDENCE,
Manila, Philippines, 2000, pp. 463-464.
2 nd
DECISION
CfAACN0.77
Page 13 of14
the remedies prescribed by Section 195 of the 1991 LGC before claiming that it had
duly complied therewith; it cannot conveniently raise that it had complied with the
thirty (30)-day period from receipt of the denial of its protest within which to elevate
its appeal with the court of competent jurisdiction, without, first and foremost,
complying with the sixty (60)-day period to file a protest on the assessment.
Therefore, while petitioner timely filed the present Petition for Review before
this Court, in accordance with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the
Court of Tax Appeals, from its receipt of the Order rendered by the RTC, the
assessment has become final and executory, and this Court has no recourse but to
uphold the same.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
~:::~::: :h:.::~.::on dated March 11,2010, and Order dated February 25, 2011J
2o
DECISION
CTA ACNO. 77
Page 14 o14
rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 73, Antipolo City, is hereby
AFFIRMED, but on the ground that the assessment had long become final and
executory.
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
O~t6A-~Z
Associate Justice
~~~,/~
AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reach
in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Co rt' s Division.
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13 of Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court' s Division.
L.-v .~
ERNESTO D. ACOSTA
Presiding Justice