CAMARINES SUR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF CAMARINES SUR, MUNICIPAL ASSESSOR AND MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF CANAMAN, CAMARINES SUR

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC CAMARINES SUR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Petitioner, �CTA EB N0.1014 (CBAA CASE NO. L-77) -versus- Present: Del Rosario, P.]., Castaneda, Jr. Bautista, Uy, Casanova, Fabon-Victorino, Mindaro-Grulla, Cotangco-Manalastas, and Ringpis-Liban, ]]. PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF THE PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR, MUNICIPAL ASSESSOR AND MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF CANAMAN, CAMARINES SUR, Respondents. Promulgated: APR 08 1015 CJII'= //:CJ-? a.~. X-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, J. For resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration1 on the Decision promulgated on August 13, 2014, without respondents' Comment. 1 Filed on September 26, 2014.

Page 2 of3 RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 1014 (CBAA CASE NO. L-77) In its Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner alleged that the Court En Bane failed to appreciate its argument that the "electric poles and transformers" do not fall within the definition of "machinery" under Section 199 (o) of R.A. No. 7160, hence, it should not be subject to real property tax. Petitioner claims that in the assailed Decision, the Court En Bane enumerated cases wherein none of the things enumerated categorically mention as comprising "machinery" or "improvement" under the Local Government Code of 1991, the Assessment Law of 1939 (Commonwealth Act No. 470) and the Real Property tax Code, but were nonetheless recognized by jurisprudence to be real properties for the purpose of taxation; and that because of these cases, the Court En Bane found untenable the argument of petitioner that "personal property not categorically included in the definition of machinery" under Section 199 (o) of R.A. No. 7160- like electric poles and transformers- must therefore be included, merely under the principle of ejusdem generis. In arguing that electric poles and transformers are not "machineries" subject to real property tax, petitioner analyzed the definition of the term "machinery" as defined in R.A. No. 7160 and stated that the term "machinery" embraces machines, equipment, mechanical contrivances, instruments, appliances or apparatus which may or may not be attached, permanently or temporarily, to the real property." The second sentence of Section 199 (o) of R.A. No. 7160 makes an enumeration of what is included in the term machinery. It says it includes the physical facilities for production, the installations and appurtenant service facilities, those which are mobile, self- power or self-propelled, and those not permanently attached to the real property which are actually, directly and exclusively used to meet the needs of a particular industry, business or activity and which by their very nature and purpose are designed for or necessary to its manufacturing, mining, logging, commercial, industrial or agricultural purposes. Petitioner claims that it is a non-profit public utility and there is no assessment level for public utilities like petitioner. Hence, the Municipal Assessor of Canaman cannot assess petitioner of real property tax against its electric poles and transformers in accordance with R.A. No. 7160. After careful evaluation of petitioner's arguments, this Court finds no merit in the instant Motion for Reconsideration. A perusal of the instant motion shows that the issues raised therein have been passed upon extensively in the assailed decision. The grounds raised by petitioner in its motion did not raise anything new to merit reconsideration.

Page 3 of3 RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 1014 (CBAA CASE NO. L-77) In Ferdinand Marcos et aL vs. Hon. Raul Mangiapus et aL 2 the Supreme Court , emphasized that "in all motions for reconsideration, the burden is upon the movants, petitioner herein, to show that there are compelling reasons to reconsider the decision of the Court." Petitioner, however, did not satisfy this burden. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. r�v. . ~ ~- "-..... WE CONCUR: MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Presiding Justice Associate Justice O. .~~~~~~Q Jff~rro C. CASTANEDN{JR. Associate Ju. stice E~.UY Associate Justice ABON-VICTORINO (On Leave) CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice LLL/--~~ AMELif'~~TANGCO- MANALASTAS Associate Justice 2 Marcos vs. Manglapuz, G.R. No. 88211, October 27, 1989.