Republic of the Philippines
CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS M a n I l a
NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (NGCP),
– versus –
LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF CEBU CITY,
CBAA CASE NO. V-31 LBAA Case No. 6730A-B-C TD Nos. C00-019-05574
TD Nos. C00-019-05581
TD Nos. C00-019-05580
– and –
OFELIA M. OLIVA, in her official capacity the CITY TREASURER OF CEBU CITY,
O R D E R
Before Us is Petitioner-Appellant’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed
on June 17, 2011 relative to the Decision rendered by this Board dated May 30,
2011 to which respondent-appellee submitted her Comment/Opposition on July
Petitioner-Appellant’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration is based on the
following grounds, thus:
1. It is clear from the foregoing provision that apart from the 3% franchise tax due to the national government, petitioner-appellant is exempt from payment of the real property tax and any and all taxes, duties, fees and charges of any kind, nature or description levied, established or collected by any authority whatsoever, local or national, including local government units;
2. The properties subject of the Second and Final Notices of Demand respectively dated 16 September 2009 (1st)/21 September 2009 (2nd and 3rd) are, by their very nature and purpose, necessary for the operation and maintenance of petitioner-appellant NGCP’s power transmission business. The properties are, thus, clearly exempt from real property taxation under R.A. No. 9511;
3. Anent the third of the aforementioned adverse rulings whereby it was held by this Honorable Board that the subject properties do not qualify as special classes of real property, petitioner-appellant most respectfully submits that even if the subject properties are not
exempt from the payment of real property taxes under R.A. No. 9511, the same should have been classified as Special Class under Sections 216 and 218 of the Local Government Code (LGC).
These “grounds” were thoroughly discussed and considered by this
Board in its aforesaid Decision. Appellant’s Partial Motion for Reconsideration
does not present any new arguments.
We reiterate our advice to Petitioner-Appellant that it can obtain a refund
from the NPC or it can pursue the claim for tax exemption from the Office of the
City Assessor. These are not simple administrative details, which this Board can
WHEREFORE, there being no cogent reason to disturb our Decision
dated May 30, 2011, appellant’s instant Motion for Partial Reconsideration, for
lack of merit, is hereby DENIED.
Manila, Philippines, November 16, 2011.
(Signed) OFELIA A. MARQUEZ
(Signed) RAFAEL O. CORTES GEOTINA
(Signed) ROBERTO D.