Republic of the Philippines
Department of Finance
CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
7th Floor, EDPC Bldg., BSP Complex
Roxas Boulevard, Manila

NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION,
Petitioner-Appellant, CBAA CASE NO. L-118
(LBAA CASE NO. 3-10)
-versus-

LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS (LBAA) OF THE PROVINCE OF IFUGAO,
Appellee,

-and-

SAMUEL A. MARINAY, Provincial Treasurer of Ifugao and ESTRELLA S. ALIGUYON, Municipal Treasurer of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao,
Respondents-Appellees.
X- – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – X

R E S O L U T I O N

This is a Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision rendered by this Board in the above-entitled case on February 27, 2013.
The instant Motion for Reconsideration was filed by Petitioner-Appellant through registered mail on March 26, 2013 and reached this Board on April 11, 2013.
Alleging that it received a copy of the assailed Decision on March 13, 2013, Petitioner-Appellant avers:
1. That the basis of this Board’s findings on the first and second issues, from the stand point of logic and common sense, is obviously absurd, uniquely oversimplified being contained in less than two (2) pages, incomplete as it is not supported by any basis in fact or in law; and

2. That this Board’s “arguments from page 10 to 15 are purely gobbledygook or a mere gibberish mumbo jumbo of general principles directly lifted from text books and citation of provisions which evidently supports herein Petitioner-Appellant’s argument that. . .”

Wow! The above opinion on the assailed Decision appears to be so unkind being expressed by Petitioner-Appellant in the most offensive language that oversteps the bounds of propriety.
We do not really think that Petitioner-Appellant meant to disrespect the Central Board of Assessment Appeals so much. Rather, we believe that Petitioner-Appellant recently came across the words “gobbledygook” and “gibberish” and instantly fell in love with them. “Masarap pakinggan kasi.” As the late Dolphy would have said.
Anyway, aside from the above-stated opinion, the arguments embodied in the instant Motion for Reconsideration are a rehash of the arguments stated in Petitioner-Appellant’s Appeal dated 20 September 2011. Said arguments were thoroughly discussed and given due consideration in the said Decision.
WHEREFORE, absent any cogent reason to disturb the questioned Decision, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Manila, Philippines, July 11, 2013.

SIGNED
OFELIA A. MARQUEZ
Chairman

SIGNED SIGNED
ROBERTO D. GEOTINA CAMILO L. MONTENEGRO
Member Member