Republic of the Philippines

CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS Manila

FILIPINO TELEPHONE CO. INC.

(PILTEL),
Petitioner-Appellant,

CBAA CASE NO. M-17

LBAA CASE NO. 01-02

– versus –

CITY ASSESSOR AND CITY TREASURER OF GENERAL SANTOS CITY,
Respondents-Appellees,

– and –

LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF GENERAL SANTOS CITY,
Appellee. x – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x

R E S O L U T I O N

Before us is a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Petitioner-Appellant

Pilipino Telephone Co. (PILTEL), which motion was received by this Board on

August 05, 2003.

Alleging that it received a copy of this Board’s decision in the above-

entitled case on July 22, 2003, Petitioner-Appellant prays that this Board find:

1. That the abovementioned decision of this Board be reversed and

accordingly modified;

2. That Petitioner-Appellant be considered exempt from paying the

aforesaid real property tax;

3. That the Respondents-Appellees refund the tax paid under protest

by the Appellant in the amount of P6,723,671.29;

4. That the Respondents-Appellees City Assessors of General Santos

City assessment be modified and lowered in accordance with real and true value.

Petitioner-Appellant insists that the phrase “The grantee, its successors or

assigns shall be liable to pay the same taxes on their real estate, buildings and

personal property, exclusive of this franchise” should be simply interpreted as the

Reference: Book X, pp. 277-278

obligations of the grantee to pay for the tax on properties that are not used in the

direct actual and exclusive use, operations, business or pursuit of its franchise.”

This is some twist. In the appeal before this Board, Petitioner-Appellant

stated that it (Petitioner-Appellant) was exempt from the payment of taxes on its

real properties, regardless of whether or not these properties were used in its

telecommunications operations or services. In any case, this matter was fully

covered in the decision of this Board.

Petitioner-Appellant also argued that “The Bureau of Local Government

Finance’s functions should not be downgraded”, implying that the BLGF’s opinion

on February 24, 1998 should be given weight and deference. This is contrary to

the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Philippine Long Distance Telephone

Company vs. City of Davao (G.R. No. 143867, August 22, 2001. This matter, too,

was extensively discussed in the decision of this Board.

Petitioner-Appellant reiterates its statement that the questioned

assessments were over-valued and were not reflective of the fair market value of

the machinery, but mere arbitrary amounts levied by Respondent-Appellee City

Assessor. As in the appeal itself, this statement by Petitioner-Appellant is not

supported by any evidence, oral or written.

WHEREFORE, this Board resolves to DENY the instant Motion for

Reconsideration for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Manila, Philippines, August 12, 2003.

(Signed) CESAR S. GUTIERREZ
Chairman

(Signed)
ANGEL P. PALOMARES Member

(VACANT) Member

Reference: Book X, pp. 277-278