Republic of the Philippines

CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS 7th Floor, EDPC Building, BSP Complex Roxas Boulevard, Manila

RODOLFO R. BONIFACIO,
Petitioner-Appellant,

– versus –

THE LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF MANDALUYONG CITY,
Appellee,

CBAA CASE NO. L-45

Re: LBAA Case No. 001 Mandaluyong City

– and –

THE CITY ASSESSOR AND THE CITY TREASURER OF MANDALUYONG.
Respondents-Appellees.
x – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x

R E S O L U T I O N

This Board rendered a decision in the above-entitled case on June 7, 2005

SETTING ASIDE the Resolution of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of

the City of Mandaluyong promulgated on September 23, 2003, and ORDERING

Respondent City Treasurer to refund the sum of Php438,951.74 to Petitioner-

Appellant as overpayment of real property taxes from 1994 to 2000, or issue unto

him a tax credit in the same amount to be applied to present and/or future realty

taxes which may be rightfully due from Petitioner-Appellant, all in accordance

with the provisions of Section 253 of R.A. 7160.

Respondents-Appellees received allegedly the Decision of this Board on

August 17, 2005. Apparently, not satisfied, the decision being adverse to

Respondents-Appellees, they filed a motion for reconsideration on August 31,

2005.

On the other hand, Petitioner-Appellant filed an opposition to

Respondents-Appellees motion for reconsideration on September 26, 2005

before this Board, copies of which were sent to the Appellees, and Respondents-

Appellees, by registered mail.

Respondents-Appellees’ outline of arguments are:

Reference: Book XII, pp. 135-136

a) The Testate and Estate of Concordia T. Lim vs. The City of Manila, et. al. (G.R. No. 90639 Feb 21, 1990 (182 SCRA 482-491) is very much applicable as decided by the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) of Mandaluyong.

b) The reliance on the Suguitan vs. Marcelino case G.R. No. 14412/CA-GR SP NO. 44155 is erroneous the case not being jurisprudential.

c) Upholding the petitioner/appellant’s position on the two (2) year requirement vis a vis the issue of prescription is likewise erroneous.

d) The Honorable Body’s contention/position regarding the applicability of Belen C. Figueras vs. Court of Appeals, et. al. (G.R. No. 119172, March 25, 1999 (305 SCRA 206) is palpably erroneous and violative of the doctrine of stare decisis.

e) The petitioner-appellant is not entitled to tax refund.

After thorough evaluation thereof, this Board finds no cogent reason that

would warrant a consideration of the decision sought to be reconsidered. The

points raised in the said motion had already been passed upon in the decision

now being assailed.

WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED

for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Manila, Philippines, November 9, 2005.

(Signed) CESAR S. GUTIERREZ
Chairman

(Signed)
ANGEL P. PALOMARES Member

(Signed) RAFAEL O. CORTES
Member

Reference: Book XII, pp. 135-136