Republic of the Philippines
CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
M a n i l a
PORTAL HOLDINGS, INC.,
CBAA CASE NO. L-61
-versus- LBAA Case No. 2004-04
THE LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF PARAÑAQUE CITY,
CITY ASSESSOR OF PARAÑAQUE CITY,
O R D E R
On August 3, 2012, this Board rendered a Decision in the above-entitled case. Not satisfied, Respondent-Appellee filed this instant Motion for Reconsideration.
Alleging that it received a copy of the assailed Decision on September 13, 2012, Respondent-Appellee sent said Motion through registered mail on September 28, 2012. The said motion eventually reached this Board on October 9, 2012.
Respondent-Appellee says that “THE LBAA IS CORRECT IN DENYNG PETITIONER’S APPEAL.” In support of such conclusion, Respondent presents the following “grounds” or “arguments,” to wit:
“I. Petitioner’s Appeal to the LBAA is based on the Ground that Ordinance No. 03-06, Series of 2003 was Implemented WITHOUT COMPLIANCE with the Constitution and Local Government Code.
“II. Respondent-Appellee City Assessor merely Comply with the Directive and Mandate of Section III of Ordinance No. 03-06, Series of 2003 Enacted by the Local Legislative Body of Paranaque City
“III. It is the Ministerial Duty of respondent City Treasurer (sic) to Comply with Mandate of Section III of Ordinance No. 03-06, Series of 2003.
“IV. Paranaque City Ordinance No. 03-06, Series of 2003 is a valid and Existing Law and Enjoys the Presumption of Validity
“V. The Correction Made By Respondent-Appellee City Assessor In Compliance with the Mandate Of Ordinance No. 03-06, Series Of 2003 Cannot be INVALIDATED Without First Invalidating The Said Ordinance.
“VI. The COURT of Competent Jurisdiction has Jurisdiction Concerning ISSUE on the Validity or Constitutionality of a Law or Ordinance like herein Paranaque City Ordinance No. 03-06, Series of 2003 and NOT the respondent-appellee LBAA.
“VII. The LBAA Cannot Encroach Upon the Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Courts of Law.”
On October 24, 2012, this Board received Petitioner-Appellant’s “Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration” of even date. Petitioner-Appellant stated, among others, that Respondent-Appellee’s Motion was not allowed, quoting Section 229 of the Local Government Code.
We would like to point out that, at present, decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) are appealable, within thirty (30) days from notice, to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in accordance with the provisions of R.A. 1125, as amended by R.A. No. 9282 on March 30, 2004.
The arguments raised by Respondent-Appellee in the instant motion were duly considered by this Board as shown in its Decision of August 3, 2012. There is, therefore, no cogent reason to disturb said Decision.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Respondent-Appellee’s instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
Manila, Philippines, February 26, 2013.
OFELIA A. MARQUEZ
ROBERTO D. GEOTINA CAMILO L. MONTENEGRO