Republic of the Philippines
Department of Finance
CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
7th Floor, EDPC Building, BSP Complex
Roxas Boulevard, Manila
BAY RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
CBAA CASE NO. L-54
-versus- (LBAA CASE NO. 2003-06)
LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OFPARAÑAQUE CITY,
CITY TREASURER OF PARAÑAQUE,
X – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – /
On June 22, 2012, this Board rendered a Decision in the above-entitled case dismissing Petitioner-Appellant’s Appeal for lack of merit. Aggrieved, Petitioner-Appellant filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration dated August 22, 2012 and received by this Board on even date.
Admitting that it received a copy of said Decision on 6 August 2012, Petitioner-Appellant states:
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE BOARD ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT PETITIONER-APPELLANT’S CLAIM FOR REFUND AND OFFSETTING HAS PRESCRIBED PURSUANT TO SECTION 226 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (‘LGC”).
1. The issue to be resolved in this case is two-fold: whether Petitioner-Appellant is entitled to a refund for overpaid real property tax in the 1st to 3rd quarters of 2000 amounting to Php7,912,476.00, and in the affirmative, whether Petitioner-Appellant may offset the real property tax for the 1st and 2nd quarters of 2003 in the amount of Php3,034,260.00 against the amount claimed as refund.
2. The Honorable Board upheld the Local Board of Assessment Appeals’ ruling that Petitioner-Appellant’s claim for refund has prescribed as it failed to appeal the City Treasurer’s decision (denying the claim for refund and request for offsetting) within the period prescribed by Section 226 of the LGC.
3. Petitioner-Appellant respectfully disagrees with the Honorable Board. Section 226 pertains to the action of the city, provincial or municipal assessor with regard to the assessed values of real properties in their jurisdiction.
4. Petitioner-Appellant’s cause of action does not have anything to (sic) with the assessed value of the properties imposed by the City Assessor of Parañaque. Its cause of action arises from the City Treasurer’s denial of its claim for refund of excess real property taxes paid for the 1st to 3rd quarters of 2000. Clearly, Section 226 of the LGC is not applicable to this case.
5. Contrary to the Honorable Board’s finding, Article 343 in relation to Article 317 of the Implementing Rules of the LGC finds application to the instant case. Article 343 provides:
‘ARTICLE 343. Payment Under Protest. – (a) No protest shall be entertained unless the taxpayer first pays the tax. There shall be annotated on the receipts the words paid under protest. The protest in writing must be filed within thirty (30) days from payment of the tax to the provincial or city treasurer, or municipal treasurer, in the case of a municipality within MMA, who shall decide the protest within sixty (60) days from receipt. (b) The tax or a portion thereof paid under protest shall be held in trust by the local treasurer concerned. Fifty percent (50%) of the tax paid under protest shall, however, be distributed in accordance with the provisions of this Rule on the distribution of proceeds. (c) In the event that the protest is finally decided in favor of the taxpayer, the amount or portion of the tax protested shall be refunded to the protestant, or applied as tax credit against his existing or future tax liability. (d) In the event that the protest is denied or upon the lapse of the sixty-day period prescribed in paragraph (a) hereof, the taxpayer may avail of the remedies provided in Article 317 and 320 of this Rule.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Article 317, in turn, provides:
“ARTICLE 317. Local Board of Assessment Appeals. – Any property owner or person having legal interest or claim in the property who is not satisfied with the assessment of his property made by the provincial, city or municipal assessor pursuant to the provisions of this Rule may, within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the written notice of assessment, appeal to local board of assessment appeals of the province or city where the subject property is situated by filing a petition under oath in the standard form prescribed therefor, together with copies of the tax declaration and such affidavits or documents in support of the appeal.” (Emphasis supplied.)
6. Under Section (sic) 343 of the Implementing Rules of the LGC, in the event that the protest of a real property tax payment is denied or upon the lapse of the local treasurer’s sixty-day period to decide the protest, the taxpayer may avail of the remedies provided in Article 317 and 320.
7. Under Article 317, in turn, the remedy for the City Treasurer’s denial of a claim for refund of real property taxes is to file an appeal with the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) within sixty (60) days from receipt of the denial of the protest. Section (sic) 317 provides that a taxpayer has “sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the written notice of assessment” to file an appeal with the LBAA. While Section (sic) 317 admittedly refers to assessments of property by the local assessor, it is clear from Section (sic) 343 that the Implementing rules intended for the procedure and periods for appeal under Section (sic) 317 to also apply to appeal of denials of claims for refund by the City Treasurer. This is the only logical way to interpret Section (sic) 343 in relation to Section (sic) 317.
8. Considering that Petitioner-Appellant received the City Treasurer’s denial of the claim for refund and offsetting on 17 September 2003, it had until 16 November 2003 to file an appeal with the LBAA.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner-Appellant respectfully prays for:
1. Reconsideration of the Honorable Board’s Decision dated 22 June 2012; and
2. Grant of Petitioner-Appellant’s claim for refund of Php7,912,476.00 of the overpaid real property taxes for the 1st to 3rd quarters of 2000 and request for offsetting of Php3,043,260.00 in real property taxes for the 1st and 2nd quarters of 2003.”
Respondent-Appellee’s Comment/Opposition to Petitioner-Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration was filed by registered mail on September 17, 2012 and reached this Board on September 19, 2012.
Respondent-Appellee prays that BRADCO’s Motion for Reconsideration be dismissed and argued that:
1. BRADCO is NOT questioning or Appealing to (sic) the Assessment of the City Assessor;
2. LBAA and CBAA has (sic) NO jurisdiction in tax refund or credit; that Appeal to the Competent Court (Regional Trial Court) is the remedy, citing Sections 195 and 196 of R.A. 7160;
3. Appeal to the Competent Court (Regional Trial Court) is the remedy o BRADCO after the City Treasurer Denied its Claim for Refund; and
4. Article 317 express pertains to ISSUE on ASSESSMENT.
The records show that the two (2) parcels of land owned by BRADCO were assessed at the market value of P9,000.00 per square meter for the years 1995 and 1996; P12,000.00 per square meter from 1997 to the third (3rd) quarter of 2000; and P6,000.00 per square meter for the fourth (4th) quarter of 2000, thus:
YEAR NO.OF S.M. MV/
1995 67,128 9,000 604,152,000 45% 271,868,400 3% 8,216,800 811,536 7,405,264
1996 67,128 9,000 604,152,000 45% 271,868,400 3% 9,129,780 811,536 8,318,244
1997 67,128 12,000 805,536,000 50% 271,868,400 3% 11,686,464 1,082,048 10,604,416
1998 67,128 12,000 805,536,000 50% 271,868,400 3% 12,173,040 1,082,048 11,090,992
1999 67,128 12,000 805,536,000 50% 271,868,400 3% 12,173,040 1,082,048 11,090,992
2000 67,128 12,000 805,536,000 50% 271,868,400 3% 9,129,780 1,217,304 7,912,476
2000 67,128 6,000 402,768,000 50% 271,868,400
62,508,904 6,086,520 56,422,384
In a letter dated 07 December 2001 and addressed to the City Mayor of Parañaque, for the attention of the City Treasurer, BRADCO requested the refund of P56,422,384.00 in realty taxes. A copy each of said letter was received by the Office of the Mayor and of the Treasurer on 13 December 2001.
In a letter dated 30 June 2003 and addressed to the City of Parañaque, for the attention of the City Treasurer and the City Assessor, BRADCO, by counsel, followed up its letter of 07 December 2001. In a letter dated July 1, 2003, the respondent City Treasurer, denied BRADCO’s request embodied in the latter’s June 30, 2003 letter. A copy of Respondent’s July 1, 2003 letter was received by BRADCO’s counsel on 7 July 2003.
The records do not show when BRADCO’s LBAA Appeal, dated 4 September 2003, was filed.
In the instant Motion, Petitioner-Appellant BRADCO states that the issue in this case is:
“Whether Petitioner-Appellant is entitled to a refund for overpaid real property tax in the 1st to 3rd quarters of 2000 amounting to Php7,912,476.00, and in the affirmative, whether Petitioner-Appellant may offset the real property tax for the 1st and 2nd quarters of 2003 in the amount of Php3,034,260.00 against the amount claimed as refund.”
On page 3 of its Appeal to this Board, BRADCO stated the following:
“2. Both properties are classified as commercial land for real property tax purposes.
“2.1. Beginning the year 1995, the properties were assessed at the rate of P9,000.00 per sq.m.
“2.2. Beginning the year 1997, the properties have an assessed value of P12,000.00 per square meter, as shown in the respective tax declarations Annexes “A” and “B”.
“3. In the last quarter of year 2000, the City Treasurer of Parañaque issued two new tax declarations for the properties owned by BRADCO decreasing the assessed value of the properties from P12,000 / sq.m. to P6,000 / sq.m.
“3.1. Tax Declaration No. E-015-06724 was issued by the City Treasurer for the property covered by TCT No. 99883 with an area of 27,128 sq.m. A copy of Tax Declaration No. E-015-06724 is attached hereto as Annex “C”.
“3.2. Tax Declaration No. E-015-06725 was issued by the City Treasurer for the property covered by TCT No. 99884 having an area of 40,500 sq.m. A copy of Tax Declaration No. E-015-06725 is attached hereto as Annex “D”.
“4. Using the correct assessed value of P6,000 per square meter, and since the properties are not actually and directly used for commercial purposes, the amount of real property taxes owed by appellant BRADCO should actually be less than it had already paid.”
In short, BRADCO wants that the realty taxes due for its properties, from the year 1995 to the third (3rd) quarter of 2000, be recomputed based on the fair market value of P6,000.00 per square meter which the “City Treasurer” used for the last quarter of 2000.
Even now BRADCO has serious misapprehensions about the functions of the City Treasurer or, for that matter, those of the City Assessor. Anyway, the matters raised by BRADCO in its instant motion were thoroughly discussed and considered in our Decision of June 22, 2012.
In its Comment/Opposition (to Petitioner-Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration) dated 10 September 2012 which reached this Board on 19 September 2012, Respondent argued that “LBAA and CBAA has NO Jurisdiction in tax refund or credit” and that “Appeal to the Competent Court (Regional Trial Court) is the remedy of BRADCO after the City Treasurer Denied its Claim for Refund”, citing the provisions of Section 196 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (“LGC”).
Like BRADCO, Respondent is also confused. Section 196 of the LGC belongs to Title One, Book II which governs only local taxes, fees and charges only. It has nothing to do with real property taxation which is governed by Title Two, Book II of the LGC. Section 196 is to local government taxation (local taxes, fees and charges), while Section 253 is to real property taxation.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner-Appellant’s instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
Manila, Philippines, February 26, 2013.
OFELIA A. MARQUEZ
WITH DISSENTING OPINION SIGNED
ROBERTO D. GEOTINA CAMILO L. MONTENEGRO