Republic of the Philippines
CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
M a n i l a

AFP RETIREMENT and SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM (AFPRSBS),
Petitioner-Appellant,
CBAA CASE NO. L-62
-versus- (LBAA Case No. 2003-02)
Parañaque City
LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS FOR THE CITY OF PARAÑAQUE,
Appellee,

-and-

CITY ASSESSOR OF PARAÑAQUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
X – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – /

O R D E R

On October 11, 2012, this Board rendered a Decision in the above-entitled case. Not satisfied, Respondent-Appellee City Assessor of Parañaque filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration via registered mail on December 4, 2012. Copies of this Motion eventually reached this Board on December 12, 2012.

Respondent-Appellee City Assessor of Parañaque, by counsel, avers:
1. In reversing the Decision of the Local Board of Assessment Appeal (sic) (LBAA), the Honorable Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) held that Ordinance No. 03-06, Series of 2003 is not a tax ordinance nor a revenue-raising measures, (sic) thus Article 275 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Local Government Code of 1991 (the “LGC”) and Section 187 of the LGC are not applicable.

2. With all due respect, the true issue in this case is whether or not Ordinance No. 03-06, Series of 2003 is valid. Thus, the LBAA is correct in dismissing petitioner-appellant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

3. In this regard, respondent-appellee is moving before this Hon. CBAA to have a second look and reconsider its decision dated 11 October 2012.

4. In fact, from Petitioner-appellant’s appeal to the LBAA up to its appeal to the CBAA, the validity of Ordinance No. 03-06, Series of 2003 is the sole issue.

Respondent-Appellee then elucidated on the following arguments, namely:
I. Petitioner-Appellant’s Appeal to the LBAA is anchored on the validity or constitutionality of Ordinance No. 03-06, Series of 2003;

II. Parañaque City Ordinance No. 03-06, Series of 2003 is a valid and existing law and enjoys the presumption of validity.

III. The Court of Competent Jurisdiction or Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction concerning the issue on the validity or constitutionality of a law or ordinance like herein Parañaque City Ordinance No. 03-06, Series of 2003 and not the respondent-appellee LBAA.

Petitioner-Appellant may have dwelt on the validity or constitutionality of the said ordinance. However, the true concern of said Appellant was the sudden upsurge in the values of its properties and, consequently, in the realty taxes due thereon.

As stated in our Decision of 11 October 2012, this Board did not touch on the validity or constitutionality of Parañaque City Ordinance No. 03-06, Series of 2003. What the Board focused on was the issue of whether or not Respondent-Appellee City Assessor was authorized to make the questioned assessment. As we stated then:
“Respondent City Assessor inferred, wrongfully, that she had the requisite authority from Ordinance 03-96, Series of 2003. This ordinance, if it is really a tax ordinance, should be construed strictly against the local government unit enacting it, and liberally in favour of the taxpayer. Thus, Section 5(b) of the LGC provides as follows:

‘SEC. 5. Rules of Interpretation.–In the interpretation of the provisions of this Code, the following rules shall apply:

‘x x x

‘(b) In case of doubt, any tax ordinance or revenue measure shall be construed strictly against the local government unit enacting it, and liberally in favor of the taxpayer. x xx’

In view of all the foregoing, We believe, and so hold, that the assessments made by Respondent City Assessor of Parañaque on the subject properties of Petitioner-Appellant, purportedly pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. 03-06, Series of 2003, of Parañaque City, are null and void for lack of legal basis.”

In any case, the matters raised by Respondent-Appellee in this instant Motion were duly discussed and considered in this Board’s Decision dated October 11, 2012.

WHEREFORE, absent any cogent reason to disturb said Decision, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Manila, Philippines, March 18, 2013

SIGNED
OFELIA A. MARQUEZ
Chairman

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