LEASEMASTER TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. MR. VICTOR ENDRIGA CITY TREASURER, QUEZON CITY

REPUBUC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION ************** LEASEMASTER TRANSPORT CORPORATION, Petitioner, C.T.A. AC No.9 -versus- Members: ACOSTA, Chaitman BAUTISTA, and CASANOVA, JJ. MR. VICTOR ENDRIGA, CITY TREASURER, Promulgated: QUEZON CITY, AUG 0 8 2005 Resrxmdent. \?1J1'. r-~ )( -- - - - - - ---- ---- - - - --- - - ---------------- - - - - - - - - -- )( RESOLUTION This resolves the issue on whether the Court has jurisdiction over the instant case. In the Petition for Review with Motion to Set Aside the Assessments and Collection of Taxes filed on April 8, 2005, petitioner contends that, as a transportation contractor, it is exempted from local taxation under Section 133 U) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160 (or also known as the Local Government Code of 1991), which reads: Section 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers ofthe Local Government Units. - Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise ofthe t:Jixing powers ofprovinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to the levy ofthe following: XXX

RESOLlJTION C.T.A. AC No.9 Page 2 (j) Tilxes on the gross receipts of trilnsportiltion contrilctors ilnd persons engilged in the trilnsportiltion ofpiiSsengers or freight by hire ilnd common cilrriers by ilir, lilnd or Wilter, except iiS provided by in this Code; Thus, respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when he assessed petitioner the aggregate amount of One Million Five Hundred Six Thousand Thirty Nine Pesos and 88/100 (P1,506,039.88) representing unpaid local business taxes for the year 2005 despite the fact that it is tax-exempt. Respondent, therefore, must be restrained in assessing and collecting local business taxes from petitioner. In his Comment/Opposition (To Petitioner's Petition for Review with Motion to Set Aside the Assessments and Collection Taxes), filed on July 8, 2005, respondent asserts: a. This Court does not have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over dedsions of Local Treasurers pursuant to R.A No. 9282; b. Under R.A. 7160, petitioner is not entitled to exemption from local business taxes. It is a security agency whose main business is to secure the safety of its clients' currencies while being transported by its armored vehicles. Hence, it is not entitled to the exemption under Section 133(j) of the Local Government Code of 1991; and c. There is no Secretary's Certification attached to the petition showing that Jose Celso caesar Rey B. Bataga was authorized by the petitioner to file on its behalf the present action. After a careful deliberation on the arguments of the parties, the Court resolves to DENY IN GIVING DUE COURSE to the Petition and, hereby, DISMISS the action. Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that when it appears from the pleadings of the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Court shall dismiss the daim. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9282, which took effect on August 24, 2004, gives us the cases over which the Court has jurisdiction. Thus:

RESOUJTION C.T.A. AC No. 9 Page 3 11. Exclusive ilppel/ilte jurisdiction to review by ilppeill, iiS herein provided: 1. Decisions of the Commissioner of the Internill Revenue in Cilses involving disputed iiSSessments, refunds of internill revenue tilxes, fees or other ch11rges, pen11lti es in reliltion thereto, or other m11tters 11rising under the N11tion111 Internill Revenue or other lilws administered by the Bureau ofInternill Revenue; 2. Inilction by the Commissioner ofInternill Revenue in Cllses involving disputed IISSeSSments, refunds of internill revenue tiiXes, fees or other ch11rges, penillties in rel11tions thereto, or other m11tters 11rising under the Niltionill Internill Revenue Code or other l11ws 11dministered by the Bure11u of Internill Revenue, where the Niltionill Internill Revenue Code provides 11 specific period of11ction, in which case the in11ction shill/ be deemed il deni11;l 3. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regionill Triill Courts in local tilx ciiSes originillly decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their origin11l or ilppellilte jurisdiction; 4. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in CiiSes involving li11bility for customs duties, fees or other money ch11rges, seizure, detention or releilse of property 11ffected, fines, forfeitures or other pen11lties in rel11tion thereto, or other miltters ilrising under the Customs Law or other lilws ildministered by the Bure~~u of Customs; 5. Decisions of the Centrill Boilrd ofAssessmentAppeals in the exercise of its ilppellilte jurisdiction over CiiSes involving the 11ssessment 11nd tilxiltion of reill property originillly decided by the provinci11l or city boilrd of11ssessment ilppeals; 6. Decisions of the Secretilry of Finilnce on customs cases elevilted to him ilutomiltical/y for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which 11re ildverse to the Government under Section 2315 of the T11riff11nd Customs Code; 7. Decisions of the Secretilry of Tl'ilde 11nd Industry, in the Cllse of nonilgriculturill product, commodity or ilrticle 11nd the Secret11ry ofAgriculture in the CiiSe of ~~gricultur11l product, commodity, or ilrticle involving dumping 11nd counterv11iling duties under Section 301 11nd 302, respectively, of the T11riff 11nd Customs Code 11nd Silfegu11rd me11sures under Republic Act No. 8800, where either p11rty m11y 11ppeal the decision to impose or not to impose s11id duties. b. Jurisdiction over CiiSes involving criminill offenses 11s herein provided: XXX c. Jurisdiction over tilx collection cases iiS herein provided: XXX

RESOLUTION C.T.A. AC No. 9 Pag e 4 Nowhere in the above-cited section provides that the Court has jurisdiction to review by appeal the final decision of the local treasurer on disputed assessments involving unpaid local business taxes. Where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to others. Expressio unius est exclusion alterius. The rule proceeds from the premise that the legislature would not have made specified enumerations in a statute had the intention been not to restrict its meaning and to confine its terms to those expressly mentioned.1 Moreover, petitioner treated the Petition for Review as a certiorari case under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court by alleging that " respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it assessed petitioner despite its exemption from local business taxes". Under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, Regional Trial Courts are dothed with authority to issue Writs of Certiorari against a lower court, corporation, board or officer who in the exercise of judicial or quasi- judicial function acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Moreover, a Petition for Certiorari must fail when the remedy of appeal is available.2 Section 195 of the Local Government Code provides the remedy of an appeal to the taxpayer in the event a local treasurer denies the protest. We quote: SEC. 195. Protest of Assessment. - x x x The UXJHiyer sh111/ h11ve thirty ( 30) d11ys from the receipt of the deni11/ of the protest or from the l11pse of the sixty d11y period prescribed herein within which to llppeill with the court of competent jurisdiction otherwise the 11ssessment becomes conclusive 11nd unllppeillllble. 1 Martin Centeno vs. Hon. Victoria Villalon-Pornillos and the People of the Philippines,236 SCRA 197. See also Lung Center of the Philippines vs. Quezon City and Constantino Rosas, in his capacity as City Assessor of Quezon City, 433 SCRAI19. 2 Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

RESOLlJTION C.T.A. AC No.9 Page 5 In the instant case, petitioner should not have sought immediate relief before this Court after respondent denied petitioner's protest filed on February 4, 2005. It should have filed an appeal with the proper court that has jurisdiction to try and decide the case. It is only after the said court renders its dedsion can this Court acquire jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, provided that it is filed within the prescribed period mandated by law.3 Settled is the rule that absence of jurisdiction entails the dismissal of the case. Lack of jurisdiction can be interposed at any time, during appeal or even after final judgment.4 In view of this Court's lack of jurisdiction over the case, there is no cogent reason to resolve the other issues which have become moot and academic. WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED DUE COURSE and the case is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. ~ ()_.,.;:: \X'' ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Justice J2-_ CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice 3 Section 7(a)3 ofR.A. No. 9282. 4 Nacpil vs. Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation, 379 SCRA 653.