Republic of the Philippines
CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS M a n i l a
MR. EDGARDO T. RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner-Appellant,
CBAA CASE NO. V – 25A -versus-
THE LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF LA CARLOTA CITY,
THE CITY ASSESSOR OF LA CARLOTA CITY,
R E S O L U T I O N
On October 10, 2008, this Board rendered a Decision in the above-
entitled case denying the appeal of Petitioner-Appellant for lack of merit.
Not satisfied, Petitioner-Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration via
registered mail on November 10, 2008, alleging that he received a copy of the
said Decision on October 24, 2008, Petitioner-Appellant clarified in his Motion
“that his true and correct name is EDGARDO T. RODRIGUEZ and not
EDUARDO T. RODRIGUEZ as stated in the assailed Decision and notice
thereof. This clarification is necessary to Appellant/Petitioner who actually has
a brother named EDUARDO T. RODRIGUEZ.” To set the records straight, this
Board was never at fault since it used the name “EDUARDO T. RODRIGUEZ”
as it appeared in the Appeal and in the Comment/Answer of Respondent-
This Board found that public hearings on the schedules of fair market
values were not specifically required under Section 212 of the Code. Petitioner-
Appellant, however, disagrees and contends that public hearings on the said
schedules of fair market values should have been conducted as supposedly
required under Section 187 of RA 7160, thus:
“SEC. 187. Procedure for Approval and Effectivity of Tax Ordinances and Revenue Measures; Mandatory Public Hearings. – The procedure for approval of local tax ordinances and revenue measures shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Code: Provided, That public hearings shall be conducted for the purpose prior to the enactment thereof: Provided, further, That any question on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be raised on appeal within thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice who shall render a decision within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the appeal: Provided, however, That such appeal shall not have the effect of suspending the effectivity of the ordinance and the accrual and payment of the tax, fee, or charge levied therein: Provided, finally, That within thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision or the lapse of the sixty-day period without the Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal, the aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings with a court of competent jurisdiction.”
Petitioner-Appellant may be confused. Section 187 of the Code deals
with mandatory public hearings on local tax ordinances and revenue
measures. Section 212 of the same Code deals with the preparation and
publication of Schedules of Fair Market Values, thus:
“SEC. 212. Preparation of Schedule of Fair Market Values. – Before any general revision of property assessment is made pursuant to the provisions of this Title, there shall be prepared a schedule of fair market values by the provincial, city and the municipal assessors of the municipalities within the Metropolitan Manila Area for the different classes of real property situated in their respective local government units for enactment by ordinance of the sanggunian concerned. The schedule of fair market values shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the province, city or municipality concerned, or in the absence thereof, shall be posted in the provincial capitol, city or municipality hall and in two other conspicuous places therein.”
Besides, while both Sections 187 and 212 are found under Book II of the
Code, Section 187 is under Title One thereof, which governs Local
Government Taxation in general, whereas Section 212 governs Real Property
Taxation, specifically under Title Two.
Petitioner-Appellant also raised for the first time the Supreme Court
decision in Ty v. Trampe (G.R. No. 117577, December 1, 1995). As correctly
stated by Petitioner-Appellant himself, this case refers to the requirements of
Section 9 of PD 921 to the effect that the schedule of values of real properties
in the Metropolitan Manila Area shall be prepared jointly by the assessors in
the districts created therein. This has absolutely no bearing on this case.
The other points raised in the instant Motion had already been
thoroughly considered in the Decision.
WHEREFORE, there being no cogent reason to disturb our Decision of
October 10, 2008, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
Manila, Philippines, July 24, 2009.
(Signed) CESAR S. GUTIERREZ
ANGEL P. PALOMARES Member
(Signed) RAFAEL O. CORTES