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