National Power Corp. v. Provincial Treasurer
National Power Corp. v. Provincial Treasurer
DECISION
PERALTA , *** J : p
For this Court's resolution is a petition for review on certiorari led by petitioner
National Power Corporation (NPC) seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 1
dated September 12, 2013 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc in E.B. No. 891.
Below are the facts of the case.
NPC is a government-owned and controlled corporation created and existing
under and by virtue of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6395 with principal o ce address at NPC
O ce Building Complex, corner Quezon Avenue and BIR Road, East Triangle, Diliman,
Quezon City. NPC was created to undertake the development of power generation and
production from hydroelectric or other sources, and may undertake the construction,
operation and maintenance of power plants, dams, reservoirs, and other works. It
operates and maintains the Binga Hydro-Electric Power Plant. 2
Respondents Provincial Treasurer, Provincial Assessor, Municipal Treasurer and
Municipal Assessor of Itogon are representatives of the province of Benguet, a local
government unit. Respondents issued the subject assessment in their o cial
capacities. 3
Sometime in May 2000, the Municipal Assessor of Itogon, Benguet assessed
NPC the amount of P62,645,668.80 real property tax for the following properties
located within the Binga Hydro-Electric Power Plant:
Tax Declaration No. Classification
99-006-01448 Home Economics Building
99-006-01457 Nursery School
99-006-01458 Elem. School Bldg.
99-006-01505 Power House
99-006-01506 Industrial Road
99-006-01516 (N) High School Building
99-007-02221 Equipment/Structure
99-008-01509 Machineries/Equipment
On March 17, 2006, NPC received a letter dated February 16, 2006 from OIC-
Provincial Treasurer of Benguet demanding the payment of real property tax
delinquency in the amount of P62,645,668.80. 4 ATICcS
On April 20, 2006, NPC challenged before the Local Board of Assessment
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
Appeals (LBAA) the legality of the assessment and the authority of the respondents to
assess and collect real property taxes from it when its properties are exempt pursuant
to Section 234 (b) and (c) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160, otherwise known as the
Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991. In the letters dated September 3, 2000 and
April 19, 2001, NPC led its requests for exemption, which the respondent Municipal
Treasurer of Itogon, Benguet has not acted upon. 5
In their Answer dated June 30, 2006, respondents alleged that NPC's properties
were not exempt from tax since the properties were classi ed in their tax declarations
as "industrial," "for industrial use," or "machineries and "equipment." There was no
evidence that the properties were being used for generation and transmission of
electric power. Respondents alleged that the period to assess had not prescribed as
the demand letter in 2006 was for collection of delinquency taxes, and not an initial
assessment which was issued in 2003 but was not settled by NPC. Respondents also
alleged that the appeal to the LBAA was filed out of time. 6
In an Order dated July 28, 2006, the LBAA deferred the proceedings upon NPC's
payment under protest of the assessed amount, or upon ling of a surety bond to cover
the disputed amount of tax. NPC moved to reconsider the Order on the ground of lack
of legal basis, but the same was denied in a Resolution dated October 3, 2006. 7
NPC led a petition for review before the Central Board of Assessment Appeals
(CBAA) claiming that payment under protest was not required before it could challenge
the authority of respondents to assess tax on tax exempt properties before the LBAA. 8
In their Answer, respondents reiterated their contentions about the taxability of
the subject properties. They added that, pursuant to Section 252 of the LGC, payment
under protest was a necessary condition to a protest against the assessment issued
by respondents. 9
On July 28, 2011, the CBAA dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time, thus:
IN VIEW THEREOF, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed for having
led out of time. (Petitioner) is advised to proceed under Section 206 of R.A. No.
7160 (the Local Government Code of 1991) and take the necessary steps in
support of its claim for exemption (sic) to be dropped from the assessment roll.
SO ORDERED. 10
The CBAA, in an Order dated February 23, 2012, denied NPC's motion for
reconsideration. It ruled that it is incumbent upon NPC to pay under protest before the
LBAA could entertain its appeal as provided under Section 252 of the LGC. It also
stressed that the meetings and ocular inspection during the pendency of the case were
all pursuant to R.A. 9285 11 or the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004.
Undaunted, NPC appealed to the CTA En Banc by ling a Petition for Review
dated April 13, 2012. The CTA En Banc denied the same for lack of merit. 12 It ruled that
as expressly provided in Section 252 of the LGC, a written protest against the
assessment may be led before the LBAA within thirty (30) days from payment under
protest. NPC failed to pay under protest the contested assessment, a condition sine
qua non for invocation of LBAA's appellate authority. 13
Hence, NPC filed the instant petition raising the sole issue:
THE CTA EN BANC ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION BASED ON
PRESCRIPTION AS SAID ISSUE WAS NEVER RAISED IN THE LBAA. IN FACT,
WHEN PETITIONER ELEVATED THE CASE BEFORE THE CBAA, THE LATTER
EVEN CONCLUDED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED THEREIN WAS
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
WHETHER THE QUESTIONED PROPERTIES ARE MACHINERIES AND
EQUIPMENT THAT ARE ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY AND EXCLUSIVELY USED BY
NPC IN THE GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC POWER. THUS,
THE CTA EN BANC SHOULD HAVE RESOLVED THE CASE BASED ON THE ISSUE
PRESENTED AND ON THE MERITS CONSIDERING THE FAR-REACHING
IMPLICATIONS OF ITS DECISION ON THE OTHER PROPERTIES OF NPC WHICH
ARE SIMILARLY SITUATED AS THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES HEREIN, INSTEAD
OF DENYING THE PETITION BASED ON PRESCRIPTION. 14
This Court finds the instant petition without merit. TIADCc
At the outset, settled is the rule that should the taxpayer/real property owner
question the excessiveness or reasonableness of the assessment, Section 252 of the
LGC of 1991 directs that the taxpayer should rst pay the tax due before his protest
can be entertained, thus:
SEC. 252. Payment under Protest. — (a) No protest shall be
entertained unless the taxpayer rst pays the tax. There shall be annotated on
the tax receipts the words "paid under protest." The protest in writing
must be led within thirty (30) days from payment of the tax to the
provincial, city treasurer or municipal treasurer, in the case of a municipality
within Metropolitan Area, who shall decide the protest within sixty (60) days
from receipt.
(b) The tax or a portion thereof paid under protest shall be held in
trust by the treasurer concerned.
(c) In the event that the protest is nally decided in favor of the
taxpayer, the amount or portion of the tax protested shall be refunded to the
protestant, or applied as tax credits against his existing or future tax liability.
(d) In the event that the protest is denied or upon the lapse of
the sixty-day period prescribed in subparagraph (a), the taxpayer may
avail of the remedies as provided for in Chapter 3, Title Two, Book II
of this Code. 15
There shall be annotated on the tax receipts the words "paid under protest." It is
only after the taxpayer has paid the tax due that he may le a protest in writing within
30 days from payment of the tax to the Provincial, City or Municipal Treasurer, who shall
decide the protest within sixty days from receipt. In no case is the local treasurer
obliged to entertain the protest unless the tax due has been paid. 16
Relevant thereto, Chapter 3, Title Two, Book II of the LGC of 1991, Sections 226
to 231, 17 provides for the administrative remedies available to a taxpayer or real
property owner who does not agree with the assessment of the real property tax
sought to be collected, particularly, the procedural and substantive aspects of appeal
before the LBAA and CBAA, including its effect on the payment of real property taxes.
NPC alleges that payment under protest under Section 252 of the LGC is
required when the reasonableness of the amount assessed is being questioned.
Challenging the very authority and power of the assessor to impose the assessment
and of the treasurer to collect the tax is an attack on the very validity on any increase
and not merely on the amounts of increase in tax. Thus, such payment is not a condition
sine qua non for the LBAA to entertain the NPC's challenge on the validity of the tax
imposed on its tax-exempt properties. 18
We are not persuaded. As settled in jurisprudence, a claim for exemption from
the payment of real property taxes does not actually question the assessor's authority
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
to assess and collect such taxes, but pertains to the reasonableness or correctness of
the assessment by the local assessor, a question of fact which should be resolved, at
the very rst instance, by the LBAA. 19 The same may be inferred in Section 206 of the
LGC of 1991, to wit:
SEC. 206. Proof of Exemption of Real Property from Taxation. —
Every person by or for whom real property is declared, who shall claim tax
exemption for such property under this Title shall le with the provincial, city
or municipal assessor within thirty (30) days from the date of the declaration of
real property su cient documentary evidence in support of such claim
including corporate charters, title of ownership, articles of incorporation, bylaws,
contracts, a davits, certi cations and mortgage deeds, and similar documents.
AIDSTE
Records are bereft of evidence which proves that, within 30 days from the ling
of its Tax Declaration, NPC led with the Municipal Assessor of Itogon, Benguet an
application for exemption or any documentary evidence of the exempt status of its
properties. Respondent Municipal Assessor assessed petitioner's properties for real
property tax since they were not dropped from the assessment roll upon failure of NPC
to comply with the requirements of the law. As found by the CTA En Banc:
. . . Evidently, the two letters requesting exemption from payment of realty
tax dated September 3, 2000 and April 19, 2001 addressed to respondent
Municipal Assessor were led beyond the required thirty (30)-day period from
the declaration of the subject properties for realty tax purposes in May 2000.
There is also no showing that petitioner submitted together with the said formal
requests su cient documents in support of such claim. Signi cantly, in the
proceedings below, respondents categorically stated that petitioner failed to
prove its claimed tax exemption. This declaration remains undisputed to date.
Precisely, the subject properties were listed as taxable in the assessment roll
giving respondents the authority to issue the assailed assessment.
xxx xxx xxx 25
Based on the foregoing backdrop and the above-cited jurisprudence, it is evident
that NPC's failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of payment under protest
in accordance with Section 252 of the LGC was fatal to its appeal. We note that it is not
the rst occasion where this Court ruled that the NPC, in claiming tax exemption,
questions the reasonableness or correctness of the assessment by the local assessor
and not the legality of the assessment or his authority to assess real property tax. 26 As
such, petitioner should have rst complied with Section 252. Its failure to prove that
this requirement has been complied with renders its administrative protest under
Section 226 of the LGC without any effect. No protest shall be entertained unless the
taxpayer first pays the tax.
Notwithstanding such failure to comply therewith, the LBAA opted not to
immediately dismiss the case but instead deferred the hearing subject to the condition
that payment of the real property tax should rst be made before proceeding, as
provided for under Section 7, 27 Rule V of the Rules of Procedure of the LBAA. We held
that, in requiring the payment under protest before proceeding with the case, the LBAA
simply recognized the importance of the requirement of "payment under protest"
before an appeal may be entertained, pursuant to Section 252, and in relation with
Section 231 28 of the same Code as to non-suspension of collection of the realty tax
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
pending appeal. 29
NPC alleged that the ling of the motion for reconsideration before the LBAA,
though not required under Section 229 (c) of the LGC, should not be taken against it for
choosing to exhaust all the means to prove that the properties are tax-exempt. It should
not be deprived of its right to appeal and ventilate its case before the courts where the
decision on the issue of taxability of the properties will have a far-reaching implication
on its other properties similarly situated. It would have been more prudent for the CBAA
and the CTA En Banc to have resolved the case based on the evidence and arguments
advanced rather than dismiss the same on pure technicality and require NPC to present
all over again its evidence of exemption of its properties, which are already deemed
exempt during the proceedings before the CBAA. 30
In its statement of the timeliness of the appeal, the NPC alleged that as provided
under Section 229 (c) of the LGC, it has 30 days from its receipt of the assailed Order
on October 16, 2006 to le its appeal before the CBAA. However, the CBAA dismissed
the same on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of appeal, viz.:
. . . [NPC] failed to realize that the period of prescription starts from
receipt of the Order of the LBAA which deferred the hearing on the [NPC]'s
Petition. By its own admission, said Order was "received by [NPC] on August 9,
2006," hence the period of appeal to the CBAA should have prescribed thirty (30)
days thereafter, or to be exact, on September 8, 2006.EcTCAD
** Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, per Raffle
dated September 8, 2014.
*** Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2395 dated October 19, 2016.
1. Penned by Associate Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, with Associate Justices Juanito
C. Castañeda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, and Cielito N.
Mindaro-Grulla, concurring; Roman G. Del Rosario, dissenting; Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-
Liban, concurring and dissenting; and Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas, on leave; rollo
pp. 32-45.
2. Id. at 32-33.
3. Id. at 33.
4. Id.
5. Id. at 33-34.
6. Id. at 34.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 35.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. AN ACT TO INSTITUTIONALIZE THE USE OF AN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES AND TO ESTABLISH THE OFFICE FOR ALTERNATIVE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
12. Id. at 45.
17. SEC. 226. Local Board of Assessment Appeals. — Any owner or person having legal
interest in the property who is not satisfied with the action of the provincial,
city or municipal assessor in the assessment of his property may, within sixty
(60) days from the date of receipt of the written notice of assessment, appeal
to the Board of Assessment Appeals of the province or city by filing a petition
under oath in the form prescribed for the purpose, together with copies of the tax
declarations and such affidavits or documents submitted in support of the appeal.
SEC. 229. Action by the Local Board of Assessment Appeals. — (a) The Board shall
decide the appeal within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of receipt of such
appeal. The Board, after hearing, shall render its decision based on substantial evidence
or such relevant evidence on record as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
support the conclusion.
(b) In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the Board shall have the powers to
summon witnesses, administer oaths, conduct ocular inspection, take depositions, and
issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum. The proceedings of the Board shall be
conducted solely for the purpose of ascertaining the facts without necessarily adhering
to technical rules applicable in judicial proceedings.
(c) The secretary of the Board shall furnish the owner of the property or the person
having legal interest therein and the provincial or city assessor with a copy of the
decision of the Board. In case the provincial or city assessor concurs in the revision or
the assessment, it shall be his duty to notify the owner of the property or the person
having legal interest therein of such fact using the form prescribed for the purpose. The
owner of the property or the person having legal interest therein or the
assessor who is not satisfied with the decision of the Board may, within thirty
(30) days after receipt of the decision of said Board, appeal to the Central
Board of Assessment Appeals, as herein provided. The decision of the Central
Board shall be final and executory.
SEC. 231. Effect of Appeal on the Payment of Real Property Tax. — Appeal on
assessments of real property made under the provisions of this Code shall, in
no case, suspend the collection of the corresponding realty taxes on the
property involved as assessed by the provincial or city assessor, without
prejudice to subsequent adjustment depending upon the final outcome of the
appeal. (Emphases supplied)
18. Rollo, pp. 17-18.
19. National Power Corporation v. Province of Quezon, G.R. No. 171586, 624 Phil. 738 (2010).
(Emphases supplied)
20. Emphases supplied.
21. Id.
22. 718 Phil. 543 (2013).
23. Id.
24. LBAA Records, Folder 3, pp. 6-7.
25. Rollo, p. 39.
26. National Power Corporation v. Province of Quezon, supra note 18.
27. Section 7. Effect of Appeal on Collection of Taxes. — An appeal shall not suspend the
collection of the corresponding realty taxes on the real property subject of the appeal as
assessed by the Provincial, City or Municipal Assessor, without prejudice to the
subsequent adjustment depending upon the outcome of the appeal. An appeal may be
entertained but the hearing thereof shall be deferred until the corresponding
taxes due on the real property subject of the appeal shall have been paid
under protest or the petitioner shall have given a surety bond , subject to the
following conditions:
(1) the amount of the bond must not be less than the total realty taxes and penalties due
as assessed by the assessor nor more than double said amount;
(2) the bond must be accompanied by a certification from the Insurance Commissioner
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
(a) that the surety is duly authorized to issue such bond; (a) that the surety bond is
approved by and registered with said Commission; and (c) that the amount covered by
the surety bond is within the writing capacity of the surety company; and
(3) the amount of the bond in excess of the surety company's writing capacity, if any,
must be covered by Reinsurance Binder, in which case, a certification to this effect must
likewise accompany the surety bond. (Emphasis supplied)
28. SECTION 231. Effect of Appeal on the Payment of Real Property Tax. — Appeal on
assessments of real property made under the provisions of this Code shall, in no case,
suspend the collection of the corresponding realty taxes on the property involved as
assessed by the provincial or city assessor, without prejudice to subsequent adjustment
depending upon the final outcome of the appeal.
29. Camp John Hay Development Corp. v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals, supra note 20.
30. Id. at 22-23.