CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. THE CITY TREASURER OF MANILA

Rep ublic of the Philippines COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City EN BANC CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, CTA EB CASE NO. 1144 Petitioner, (Civil Case No. 07-116920) -versus- Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.J., THE CITY TREASURER OF CASTANEDA, JR. MANILA, BAU TI S T A Respondent. UY CASANO VA FABON -VICTORINO MINDARO - GRULLA COTANGCO-MANALASTAS, and RINGPIS-LIBAN, JJ. Promulgated: NOV 05 2015 ~ 6.'0//- ~ - x -------------------------------------------------------------- - - - ----------- x RESOLUTION MINDARO- GRULLA, J.: T his res olves res pond ent's " Moti o n fo r Reco nside ration" of th e Decision d at ed Sept em ber 4 , 2015 of this Co u rt en ban e, th e di spos itive porti o n of whi ch st ates: "WHEREFORE , this petition is hereby GRANTED . The decision dated August 14, 2007 and Order dated March 8, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Region, Branch 45 of Manila docketed as Civil Case No. 07-116920 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASI DE . The Orders dated August 20, 2004 and November 11, 2004 of the Metropo lita n Tria l Court of Manila Branch 19 are likewise REVERSED and SET ASIDE . The instant case is hereby REINSTATED, and respondent City Treasurer o.f Manila is REQUIRED within the period available pursuant to Section 4 of Ru le 16, 1997 Revised Ru les of Civil Procedure TO FILE its answer before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila Branch 4. The Metropolitan Trial Court is ordered to proceed with dispatch to the trial on the merits. SO ORDERED ."

Chino t)o nkin g Corporolion vs. !he Cily lreosurer ol Monilo Page? o f 6 C IA tt) Cose No. I 144 (Civil Cose No. 0/- 1I (,920) RESOLUTION In assailing this Court's Decision, respondent reasserts its arguments previously raised in the Comment and Memorandum filed before this Court. Respondent seeks reconsideration on the following ground: a. Lack of cause of action and prematurity; b. Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies; and c. Lack of authority to sue. On October 27, 2015, petitioner filed a "Comment/Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration". Petitioner avers that petitioner's complaint for refund was filed within the period prescribed by law and that the authority of Shirley T. Tan to sign the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping in petitioner's complaint has been rightly recognized by the Courts. We resolve to deny the motion. After a careful examination of respondent's "Motion for Reconsideration", the Court finds that the issues and arguments raised in said motion had already been sufficiently passed upon and fully discussed by the Court's Decision dated September 4, 2015. To reiterate, We find no merit on respondent's arguments of lack of cause of action, prematurity, non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and lack of authority to sue, to wit: "ln the recovery of any tax, fee, or charge erroneously or illegally collected, a written claim for refund or credit filed with the local treasurer is necessary within two (2) years from the date of the payment.1 Section 196 of R.A. 7160 otherwise known as "Local Government Code of 1991" provides as follows: 1 METRO MANILA SHOPPING MECCA CORP., SHOEMART, INC., SM PRIME HOLDING S, INC., s -r AR APPLIANC ES CENTER, SUPER VALU E, INC., ACE HARDWARE PHILIPPINES, IN C., H EALTH AND BEAUTY, INC., JOLLIMART PHILS. CORP., and SURPLUS MARKETING CORPORATION vs.MS. LIBERTY M. fO LEDO, in her official capacity as the City rreasurer of Manila, and T HI:: CITY OF MANILI\, G.R. No. 190818, June 5, 2013.

Chino Bonking Corporo lion vs. Ihe Cil y lreosurer o l Monilo Pogc 3 of 6 Cl A tl3 Cose No. I 144 (Civil Cose No. 0/-116920) RESOLUTION ' No case or proceedi ng shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any tax, fee, or charge erroneously or illegally collected until a written claim for refund or credit has bee n fil ed with th e local treasurer. No case or proceeding shall be entertained in any court after the two (2) years from th e date of the payment of such tax, fee, or charge, or from the date the taxpayer is entitled to a refund or credit.' Claiming for refund under Section 196 of R.A. 7160, is a remedy differe nt from protest under Section 1957 of RA 7160. ln this case, petitioner was able to file its claim for refund within the two year period. Th e business tax appears to have been paid on January 2005 while th e claim for refund was filed on February 2006, well within the year period. 3 Evidently, respondent's arguments for lack of cause of action, prematurity and non-exhaustion of administrative remed ies pursuant to Section 195 of RA 71 60 must fail. Furthermore, we find no merit on responde nt's argument that t he Shirley T. Tan as Assista nt Vi ce President ha s no authority to sign the Verification and Certifi cation against Forum Shopping of the Complaint before the Municipal Trial Court considering that Shirley T. Tan as Manager was the one authorized based on the Secretary's Certificate 11 � Thus, we find that the Regional Trial Court was correct when it ruled as follows: " Jt is to be noted that the present case is one for refund of sum of money and payment under protest is not necessary, nevertheless, the claim for refund must categorica lly dema nd for th e reimbursement of the overpa id amount. xxx . This the plaintiff has accomplished in its letter dated February 24, 2006. 2 SEC. 195. Protest of Assessment. - When lh e local treasurer or his duly authorized represe ntative find s thal correct ta xes, fees, or charges have not been paid, he shall issue a notice of assessment stating th e nature of the tax, fee or charge, the amount of defi cie ncy, the surcharges, interests and penalties. Wilhin sixty (60) days from the receipt of the noti ce of assessm ent, the taxpayer may file a written protest with the loca l treasurer contesting the assessment; otherwise, the assessme nt shal l become final and executory. The loca l treasurer shall d ecid e Lhe protest within sixly (60) days from the time of its fi ling. If the loca l treasurer finds th e protest to be wholly or partly meritorious, he shall issu e a notice canceling wholly or partia lly the assessm ent. However, if the local treasurer finds the assessment to be who lly or partly co rrect, he sha ll deny t he protest who lly or partly w ith noti ce to the taxpayer. The taxpayer shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of the denial of the protest or from the lapse of lhe sixty (60) day period prescribed herein within which to ap pea l with the court of com pet ent jurisdiction otherwise the assessment becomes conclusive and unappea lable. 3 Municipal T rial Court Docket. pp. 11 23. 4 Ibid . pp. 9 10.

Chino Bonking Corpora lion vs. Ihe Ci ly Ireasurer ol Monilo Page -1 of 6 C I1\ t:l3 Case No. I 144 (Civil Case No. 0/-1 16920) RESOLUTION XXX XXX XXX. Furthermore, the Secretary's Certificate dated May 14, 2003 shows that Shirley T. Tan is one of the authorized officers who can singly sign complaints and other documents as stated th erein for and in behalf of the Bank. As there is no identity of causes of actions among the twenty (20) other cases filed by plaintiff against the defe ndant, the plaintiff is, therefore, not guilty of forum shopping. " While the Regional Trial Court was correct in applying Section 196 of R.A. 7160 and sustaining the authority of the signatory in the verification and certification, it erred when it ruled that there was double taxation. Al the outset, Tax Ordinance No . 7988, otherwise known as Revised Revenue Code of the City of Manila repealing Tax Ordinance No. 7794 entilled, Revenue Code of the City of Manila was already declared void by the Supreme Court in the case of Coca Cola Bottler's Philippines, Inc. vs. City of Manila, GR No. 156252, June 27, 2006. Thus, the controversy of whether there is double taxation is rendered moot when tax ordinance was declared void and of no legal effect. xxx. Clearly, Tax Ordinances No. 7988 and No. 8011 is null and for the following reasons: (1) Tax Ordinance No. 7988 was enacted in contravention of the provisions of the Local Government Code {LGC) of 1991 and its implementing rules and regulations; and (2) Tax Ordinance No. 8011 could not cure the defects of Tax Ordinance No. 7988, which did not legally exist. In addition, in another case involving of Coca Cola5 and Tax Ordinance No . 7988, the Supreme Court finds that there is indeed double Laxation if a taxpayer is subjected to both the taxes under Sections 14 and 21 of Tax Ordinance No. 7988.xxx." ~ fill CITY OF MANILI\,Lll3[RTY M. I OLEDO, in her ca pacity as Till: 1REASU RER OF MANILA and JOSEPHSANTIAGO , in his capacity as the CHIEF OF THE LICENSE DIVISION Or CITY Of-MANILA vs. COCA-COLA BOlTLERS PH ILIPPINCS, INC., G. R. NO . 181845, AUGUST 4, 2009.

Chino Bonking Corp oro lio n vs. Ihe Ci ly lreosurer o l Mo nilo Pa ge 5 o f 6 C I A t:B Cose No . I 144 (Civil Cose No . 0/- 1I 6920) RESOLUTION Furthermore, respondent has yet to f ile an answer before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila Branch 4 . Thus, We rule: "Records disclosed thal Lhe issues were nol yel joined and that Lhe parties have yel La present their respective evidence. Thus, we hold that the instant case should proceed to trial for the parties to adduce their respective evidence La support their positions in the defense of their asserted rights. " In sum, We find no cogent reason to reverse or modify our Decision. No substanti al argument has been adduced to warrant the reconsideration sought. WHEREFORE , premises considered, respondent's "Motion for Reconsideration" is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Q.uJ; Kk lvt ~-- c;~ WE CONCUR: CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice (I maintain oncurrin & Dissenting Opinion) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice Slc~ ~ c. .~~ / <),_ (On Leave) LOVELl: R. BAUTISTA Jt'iANITO c. CASTANEDA, jR. Associate Justice Associate Justice CAESA~ASANOVA ... Associate Justice ER~P.UY Associat e Justice

Chino l)onking Corporol ion vs. !he Cily lreasurer ol Manila Pogc 6 of 6 CIA l::l) Case No. 1144 (Civil Case No. 0/-116920) RESOLUTION (On Leave) ESPERANZA R. FABON-VICTORINO Associate Justice (On Leave) AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice ~. ~ ~L.... MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice