Republic of the Philippines
Department of Finance
CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSNMENT APPEALS
7/F EDPC Bldg., BSP Complex
Roxas Boulevard, Manila
CAMARINES SUR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (CASURECO II),
CBAA CASE NO. L – 77
THE LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF THE PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR,
THE MUNICIPAL ASSESSOR AND MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF CANAMAN, CAMARINES SUR,
X – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – -X
On August 28, 2012, this Board rendered a Decision in the above-entitled case.
Alleging that it received a copy of the aforementioned Decision on November 06, 2012, the instant Motion for Reconsideration was filed by Petitioner-Appellant filed through registered mail on November 20, 2012, copies of which reached this Office on December 3, 2012.
Petitioner-Appellant is seeking a reconsideration of the assailed Decision on the following “grounds:
THE HONORABLE BOARD FAILED TO CONSIDER MATERIAL POINTS RAISED BY PETITIONER-APPELLANT, WHICH IF CAREFULLY CONSIDERED WOULD PROBABLY CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE.”
Petitioner-Appellant said that the Board did not consider the Court of Appeals case of Manila Electric Company vs. The City Assessor and City Treasurer of Lucena City (CA-GR. SP No. 67027, May 13, 2004), but admits that the same is pending appeal at the Supreme Court!
All the other relevant matters and arguments raised by Petitioner-Appellant in the instant Motion for Reconsideration were covered and duly considered in the assailed Decision. We would, however, like to emphasize on the relevance of the provisions of Section 131(d) of the LGC which define the term “business” as “trade or commercial activity regularly engaged in as a means of livelihood or with a view to profit.”
Said Section 131 contains the definition of terms in relation to local business taxes, fees or charges governed by the provisions of Title One, Book II (Local Government Taxation) of the LGC. Real Property Taxation (Title Two, Book II of the LGC) has its own definition of terms relevant to said real property taxation. In order to be subject to real property tax, a piece of real property need not be used in business – or need not be owned by a person engaged in business.
WHEREFORE, absent any cogent reason to disturb this Board’s Decision of August 28, 2012, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
Manila, Philippines, March 21, 2013.
OFELIA A. MARQUEZ
ROBERTO D. GEOTINA CAMILO L. MONTENEGRO