THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT OF CAMARINES SUR v. CAMARINES SUR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (CASURECO II) AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT OF NAGA CITY

CTA Form No.8 (For DCC) 1111111111111111111111 11111 11111 1111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111 22-000179-0030 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA AC NO. 264 THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT OF CAMARINES SUR, Petitioner, -versus- CANL\RINESSURIIELECTRIC NOTICE OF RESOLUTION COOPERATIVE, INC. (CASURECO II) AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT OF NAGACITY, Respondents . To: ATTY. JANIS IAN B. REGASPI-CLEOFE Counselfor Petitioner LGU Canrarines Sur OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL LEGAL OFFICER Capitol Complex, Brgy. Cadlan, Pili Camarines Sur ATTY. MCGYVER GERARD S. ORBINA Counsel for the Respondent - LGU Naga City 3/F LTFRB Building City Hall Compound J. Miranda Avenue, Naga City TABORALAW Diversion Road, Concepcion Pequefia Naga City HON. PABLO CABILLAN FORMARAN III Presiding Judge Regional Trial Court 5th Judicial Region Branch 21 , City ofNaga GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on May 6, 2024, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, May 7, 2024. Atty. Maria Jo~. Chan-Te Executive ~ourt II

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CTA AC No. 264 UNIT OF CAMARINES SUR, Petitioner, Members: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J. , Chairperson, MANAHAN, and CAMARINES SUR II REYES-FAJARDO, JJ. ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (CASURECO II) AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT Promulgated: UNIT OF NAGA CITY, Respondents. ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTI MANAHAN, J.: This resolves petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration filed on January 19,2024 and received by the Court on January 31, 2024 ,1 with respondent's Comment on/ Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration [From the Decision dated 19 December 2023] ("Comment/ Opposition") filed on February 26, 2024.2 In the Decision date d December 19, 2023, this Court affirmed the right of respondent Local Government Unit of Naga City ("Naga City") to the local franchise ta){es due from respondent CASURECO II on gross receipts derived from nine (9) municipalities within the territorial jurisdiction of petitioner Local Government Unit of Camarines Sur ("Camarines Sur"). The dispositive portion thereof reads: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the present Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. 1 Docket- Vol. III , pp. 317-320. 2 Docket - Vol. III , pp. 341-346. Respondent 's Motion for Extension of Time (To File Opposition to the Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration) was deemed granted by the Court in its Resolution dated March 19, 2024.

RESOLUTION CTA AC No . 264 The Local Government Unit of Camarines Sur vs . Camarine s Sur II Electric Coop erative, Inc. (CASURECO II) a nd the Local Government Unit of Naga City Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated September 17, 2021 and Order dated November 2 , 2021, both rendered by RTC - Branch 21 , in Special Civil Case No . RTC-2020-0105, are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Assailing the said Decis ion, petitioner argues in its Motion for Reconsideration that CASURECO II exercises its privileges under its franchise not only within the territorial limits of respondent Naga City, but a lso within that of petitioner. Thus, both Naga City and petitioner are entitled to franchise taxes realized from their respective territorial jurisdictions. Petitioner cites the case of National Power Corporation v. City of Cabanatuan3 which laid down the following requisites for liability for local franchise tax: (1) that one has a "franchise" in the sense of a secondary or special franchise ; and (2) that it is exercising its rights or privileges under this franchise within the territory of the pertinent local government unit. In its Comme nt/ Opposition, r e spondent asserts that petitioner's four (4) -page Motion for Reconsideration is a mere rehash of its Petition for Review . As already passed upon by the Court, Naga City has the sole authority to assess and collect the local franchise taxe s on CASURECO II 's entire area of coverage, being the local government unit having territorial jurisdiction over the principal office of CASURECO II. We now resolve. Indeed , petitioner's Motion f or Reconsideration does not raise any matter that has not yet been thoroughly considered and discussed in the assa iled Decision. To reiterate , Article 226 of the Implementing Rule s and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, is clear: the province shall not impose franchise tax on "business enjoying franchise operating within the territorial jurisdiction of any city located within the province." Since franchise tax is a tax on business and not on person or property, its situs is the place where the privilege is exercised- i.e . where the taxpayer has its principal office and from where it operates- 3 G.R. No. 149 11 0, April 9 , 2023 [Per J . Puno , Third Division].

RESOLUTION CTA AC No. 264 The Local Government Unit of Camarines Sur vs. Camarines Sur II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (CASURECO II) and th e Local Government Unit of Naga City regardless of the place where its goods or services are delivered. 4 While a motion for reconsideration may tend to dwell on issues already resolved, it is still incumbent upon the movant to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the d esired course of action. 5 More importantly, it behoove s the movant to specify the findings or conclusions in the judgment which are not supported by evidence or contrary to law, making express reference to the pertinent evidence or legal provisions, as required by Section 2 , Rule 37 of the Rules of Court.6 This p etitioner failed to do . ACCORDINGLY, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration filed on January 19, 2024 is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. C~ J'. CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: (no part) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice ~ ~f~ lj~ MARIAN IvY(t. .REYtS-;A:3ARDO Associate Justice 4 City of!riga v. Camarine s Sur III E lectric Coop erative, Inc., G .R. No . 19294 5, Sep tember 5, 20 12 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division). s Roque, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 188456 (Resolution), Februa ry 10, 2010 [Per J . Velasco, En Bane]. 6 People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 32657, Sep tember 1, 1992 [Per J . Nocon, Second Division) .