PUBLIC SAFETY MUTUAL BENEFIT FUND, INC. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MARIO A. AVENIDO VS. ROSETTE A. LAQUIAN, Acting City Treasurer, San Juan City

� REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY Second Division PUBLIC SAFETY MUTUAL CTA AC CASE NO. 245 BENEFIT FUND, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MARIO A. A VENIDO, Members: Petitioner, RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and -versus- FERRER-FLORES,JJ ROSETTE A. LAQUIAN, Acting Promulgated: r r" J ~ . City Treasurer, San Juan City, JUN 11 2014 Respondent. X ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7----------------- X DECISION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: The Case The instant Petition for Review ("Petition") 1 and the corresponding Amended Petition2 constitute an appeal by petitioner for the setting aside of the Decision, dated June 2, 2020, ("Assailed Decision"), and Order, dated 6 November 2020 ("Assailed Order"), of the Regional Trial Court ("RTC"), Pasig City, Branch 264 in Case No. 75466-SJ. The Parties Petitioner is a non-stock, non-profit domestic corporation organized as a mutual benefit association with business address at No. 318-320 comer 1st and 2nd West Crame Sts., Barangay West Crame, Santolan Road, San Juan City. It is represented by its President, Mr. Mario A. Avenido.Y See Nature of the Petition , Petition, Rollo, p. 5. See Nature of th e Petition , Amended Petition, id. at 418 . See Pa1ties, Petition , Records, p. 7; Ann ex " E", Petition , id. at pp. 75-77 . .,..

DECISION CTA A.C. Case No . 245 P;~ge 2 of 15 Meanwhile, respondent Rosette F. Laquian is the Acting City Treasurer of San Juan City with postal address at the Office of the City Treasurer, Pinaglabanan St. comer Dr. P.A. Narcisio St., Barangay Corazon de Jesus, San Juan City.4 The Facts Petitioner's Amended Articles of Incorporation provides that it was primarily formed: 5 a. To foster brotherhood and sisterhood mutual assistance among members; b. To encourage the habit of thrift and savings among members; c. To provide financial material aid and comfm1s to members and their families in case of losses, disability, necessities, unemployment, old age as may be authorized by statutes or regulations prescribed by competent authority; d. To provide retirement pension benefits to members and their families; e. In general, to do such acts and things and to undertake such activities not otherwise prohibited by law which are calculated to help members and necessary for the accomplishments of the purpose for which the fund has been organized. It realizes gross receipts from the contribution of members to the Equity Plan (Insurance Plan), Premiums from other insurance plans, Investment earnings, and other incomes. In addition, petitioner realizes rental income by leasing a portion of its building to tenants. All of its funds and earnings, however, are utilized for the mutual benefit and protection of its members and their families. 6 Sometime in the past, the Bureau of Internal Revenue ("BIR") issued an Exemption Ruling from income realized by petitioner as a Mutual Benefits Association. 7 In 2006, petitioner transferred its main office from Camp Crame to its present address in San Juan City. On July 26, 2006, the Office of the Mayor, Businessn Per~t and Licensing Office, issued petitioner's first ever Permit to Operate:Y See Parties, Petition, id. at p. 7. Annex "J", Petition, id. at 102-107. 6 Petition , id. at 9. Annex " K", Petition, id. at I08-110. Annex " L", Petition, id. at Ill-112.

DECISION CTA A. C. Case No. 245 ~age 3 of 15 From calendar year ("CY") 2006 to CY 2015, petitioner was assessed for local business taxes ("LBT") only on its leasing operations. For said period, petitioner paid a total ofPhp581,951.33 as LBT. On October 29, 2015, a Tax Order of Payment ("TOP") (hereinafter referred to as "TOP 1") was issued by respondent requiring petitioner to pay LBT not only on its leasing activity but also on the gross receipts that it received from all its operations as a Mutual Benefits Association, pursuant to Section 143 (f) in relation to Section 131 of the Local Government Code ("LGC') from CY 2009 to 2015. On December 1, 2015, petitioner sent a Letter, dated November 24, 2015, to respondent, informing the latter that it is a Mutual Benefits Association and as such is exempt from payment ofLBT on "banks and other financial institutions" under Section 143 (f) in relation to Section 131 of the LGC. 9 It referenced Local Finance Circular No. 2-93, dated June 15, 1993, which provides that Mutual Benefits Associations are not within the scope of the LBT on "banks and other financial institutions." 10 On December 10, 2015, petitioner requested from the Bureau of Local Government Finance ("BLGF") for a specific ruling on its exemption from LBT. In an Opinion, dated January 14, 2016, 11 the BLGF opined that since petitioner is a Mutual Benefits Association, it is exempt from payment of LBT. Following this, petitioner filed a Protest against TOP 1, raising the argument that it is a Mutual Benefits Association, and as such, it is not subject to LBT on "banks and other financial institutions." 12 On January 18, 2017, respondent issued another TOP ("TOP 2") which contained the same assessments for CYs 2009 to 2015 as covered by TOP 1 but with additional LBT assessments for CYs 2016 and 2017 which were made on the same legal basis as TOP 1. 13 On January 23, 2018, petitioner received a Letter, dated September 5, 2017, effectively denying its Protest against TOP 1. Thereafter, petitioner filed an Appeal with RTC-Branch 160 questioning the propriety ofTOP 1 and TOP 2. After RTC-Branch 160 denied the Appeal on the basis that petitioners failed to prove its alleged exemption from the payment of LBT, petitioners then elevated the matter before the Court ofTax Appeals ("CTA"). 14 The case~ 9 Annex " M", Petition, id. at 11 3-114 . 10 Annex "N", Petition, id. at I 15-1 2 1. 11 Annex "0 ", Petition, id. at 122- 125. 12 Petition , id. at 12. 13 Annex "G", Petition, id. at 81-1 25. 14 Petition , id. at 12-13 .

DECISION CTA A.C. Case No. 245 ~a ge 4 of 15 was eventually disposed of by the CTA En Bane against petitioner, which ruled that the TOPs 1 and 2 had become final, executory, and unappealable as petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of Section 195 ofthe LGC. 15 Thereafter, and central to this Petition, a TOP, dated January 21, 2019, ("TOP 3") was received by petitioner from respondent on January 28, 2019. 16 TOP 3 covers the period from CY 2009 to 2019 and assessed petitioner the amount of Two Hundred Eight Million One Hundred Thirty Thousand Five Hundred One and 95/100 Pesos for deficiency LBT under the category - "Financial Institution- Insurance Companies." Petitioner then filed a Protest against the TOP on March 13, 2019 with the Office of the City Treasurer through a Letter, dated March 11, 2019.17 It reiterated its position that, as a Mutual Benefits Association, it is ex empt from payment ofLBT. On May 14, 2019, petitioner received a copy of the Letter, dated May 10, 2019, denying the Protest. 18 Accordingly, petitioner filed on June 13, 2019 an Appeal before RTC- Branch 264 questioning the denial of its administrative Protest. 19 On 2 June 2020, the Assailed Decision was promulgated by RTC- Branch 264 denying petitioner's Appeal.20 Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the said Decision on 4 September 2020.21 Through the Assailed Order, dated 6 November 2020, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied. 22 Thus, on December 14, 2020, petitioner filed the instant Petition. On January 20, 2021 , this Court ordered respondent to file a Comment on the Petition,23 which respondent filed through registered mail on March 22, 2021y 15 Public Saf ety Mutual Benefit Fund, Inc., represented by its President, Mario A. Avenido v. Rosette F. Laquian, Acting City Treasurer, San Juan City, C.T.A. EB No. 2198, January 15 , 2021 . 16 Annex " H", Petition, Records, pp. 85-87. 17 Annex "C", Petition, id. at 65-72 . 18 Annex " D", Petition, id. at 73-74. 19 Annex "Q", Petition, id. at 126-151. 20 Annex "A", Petition, id. at 39-59. 21 Ann ex " R", Petition, id. at 152-1 77 . 22 Ann ex " B", Petition, id. at 60-63. 23 !d. at 209-2 10 . 24 !d. at 215-226.

DECISION CTA A. C. Case No. 245 On June 10, 2021, petitioner manifested that it paid under protest the LBT assessments contained under TOPs 1, 2, and 3.25 In response, however, respondent filed a Comment (In Re: Manifestation dated June 9, 2021) indicating that while she confirms the payment made by petitioner of the LBT assessments contained under TOPs 1, 2, and 3, the said payment cannot be considered a payment under protest considering that such manner of payment is not legally available for LBT assessments but is simply allowed by the LGC for real property tax assessments.26 RTC-Branch 264 elevated the Court Records appurtenant to the present case on April 25, 2022.27 On April 29, 2022, petitioner filed its Memorandum for the Petition.28 On May 23, 2022, petitioner filed an Urgent Verified Motion for the Lifting ofthe Warrant ofLevy. In said Motion, petitioner alleged that since it already paid the LBT assessments contained under TOPs 1, 2, and 3, there is no legal basis for respondent to continue levying petitioner's real properties.29 On August 11, 2022, respondent filed her Comment/Opposition (to the Verified Urgent Motion for the Lifting of the Warrant of Levy) counter- arguing that she cannot lift the levy made on petitioner's real properties since petitioner's payment under protest for LBT assessments is not legally sanctioned under the LGC. Lifting the Warrant of Levy might estop the City from questioning petitioner's procedural mistake.30 On November 10, 2022, respondent filed her Memorandum.31 On November 14, 2022, petitioner submitted the Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Rizalina V. Lumbera in support of its Urgent Verified Motion for the Lifting of the Warrant ofLevy.32 On November 22, 2022, Atty. Lumbera was placed on the witness stand. During the said hearing, petitioner was given a chance by the Court to amend its Petition to include the refund aspect of the present case which resulted from petitioner's payment under protest of the LBT assessments contained under TOPs 1, 2, and 3 and which was covered by the testimony of Atty. LumberaY 25 !d. at 228-248. 26 !d. at 250-253. 27 !d. at 273-277 . 28 /d.at281-303. 29 !d. at 305-327. 30 Jd. at 331-336. 31 !d. at 347-360. 32 !d. at 369-41 I. 33 Id. at 413-417.

DECISION CTA A.C. Case No. 245 .Page 6 of 15 On December 7, 2022, petitioner filed its Amended Petition containing the refund aspect of the instant case that resulted from its payment under protest of the LBT assessments contained in TOPs 1, 2, and 3.34 On December 23, 2022, respondent filed through registered mail her Comment (to the Amended Petition dated 06 December 2022), contending that the Amended Petition must be dismissed since petitioner failed to pay the necessary docket fees for the refund element of the Amended Petition.35 In a Resolution, dated March 31, 2023, this Court ordered the lifting of the Warrant of Levy considering that petitioners have already paid the LBT due in the TOPs 1, 2, and 3.36 Petitioner filed its Memorandum in relation to the Amended Petition on May 11, 2023,37 while respondent filed her Memorandum on May 12, 2023.38 Thus, in a Resolution, dated June 15, 2023 , the instant case was submitted for Decision.39 Hence, this Decision. The Issues40 Whether or not respondent erred in not considering petitioner as a Mutual Benefits Association, the primary purpose of its creation being for the mutual benefit and protection of its members; Whether or not respondent erred in disregarding BLGF Circular No. 2-93 and the Letter Opinion of the BLGF dated January 14, 2016; and Whether or not the assessments made by respondent are violative of due process of law rendering it void v 34 /d. at 418-449 . 35 !d. at 452-458 . 36 !d. at 465-467 . 37 /d. at 468-495. 38 !d. at 496-526 . 39 /d. at 528 . 40 See Assig nment of Errors, Memorandum for Petitioner, id. at 479.

DECISION CTA A. C. Case No. 245 _Page 7 of 15 Arguments of the Parties Petitioner's Arguments41 In suppmi of its case against TOP 3, petitioner posits the following arguments: Respondent erred in not considering petitioner as a Mutual Benefits Association, the primary purpose of its creation being for the mutual benefit and protection of its members. In TOP 3, respondent failed to clearly indicate the basis of the assessment. Respondent merely provided that TOP 3 was issued on the basis of Section 143 (f) of the LGC. The LBT imposed under said provision is applicable only to "banks and other financial institutions". Pursuant to Section 131 of the LGC, the said term includes "insurance companies." To determine which entities qualify as insurance companies, one must first refer to the Insurance Code ofthe Philippines. Under Section 190, Title 1, Chapter III of the Insurance Code of the Philippines, insurance companies do not include Mutual Benefits Associations. Section 403, Title 1, Chapter VII of the Insurance Code of the Philippines defines a Mutual Benefits Association as "[a]ny society, association or corporation, without capital stock, formed or organized not for profit but mainly for the purpose of paying sick benefits to members, or of furnishing financial support to members while out of employment, or of paying to relatives of deceased members of fixed or any sum of money, irrespective of whether such aim or purpose is carried out by means of fixed dues or assessments collected regularly from the members, or of providing, by the issuance of certificates of insurance, payment of its members of accident or life insurance benefits out of such fixed and regular dues or assessments, but in no case shall include any society, association, or corporation with such mutual benefit features and which shall be carried out purely from voluntary contributions collected not regularly and/or no fixed amount from whomsoever may contribute." As shown by the purposes found in petitioner's Amended Articles of Incorporation, the Amended By-Laws,42 the Certificate ofMembership issued by the Insurance Commission,43 and the BIR Certificate of Exemption, petitioner is a duly registered non-stock, non-profit Mutual BenefitsY' 4 1 See Discussion , Memorandum for Petitioner, id. at 479-492 . 42 Annex "G". 43 Annex " S" .

DECISIO CTA A.C. Case No . 245 Association, engaged in insurance operations, among others, exclusively to its members, who are from public safety offices. While operating as a Mutual Benefits Association, petitioner realizes receipts from the contribution of members to the Equity Plan (Insurance Plan), premiums from other insurance plans, and investment earnings and other incomes. Also, petitioner leases a portion of its building to tenants realizing rental income from leasing activities. All of its funds and earnings, however, are utilized for the mutual benefit and protection of its members and their families. The fact that petitioner is engaged in insurance activities, however, does not make petitioner an insurance company outright which is within the purview of the Insurance Code ofthe Philippines in relation to Section 143 (f) ofthe LGC. This is because petitioner is a Mutual Benefits Association where all of its funds and earnings are utilized only for the mutual benefit and protection of its members and their families. Being a Mutual Benefits Association and not an insurance company, petitioner cannot be deemed within the purview of "banks and other financial institutions" which are subject to LBT under Section 143 (f) ofthe LGC. Respondent erred in disregarding Local Finance Circular No. 2-93 and the BLGF's Letter Opinion, dated January 14, 2016. These issuances declare that petitioner is indeed a Mutual Benefits Association not subject to LBT under Section 143 (f) ofthe LGC. While the BLGF cannot grant tax exemption to herein petitioner, it cannot be denied that the BLGF has undoubted expertise on the matter of local taxation. Hence, its issuances deserve weight and credence. The assessments made by respondent are violative of due process of law, rendering the same null and void. Respondent failed to provide with sufficient particularity the basis of the LBT assessment contained in TOP 3. More importantly, TOP 3 does not contain a definite assessment. It is a mere accumulation of the assessments from CY 2009 to present. As a demand for payment of petitioner's alleged deficiency LBT, TOP 3 should definitely provide what LBT assessment is sought to be collected and should not include those LBT assessments already covered by previous TOPs. By mingling the LBT assessments covered by TOPs 1 and 2, TOP 3 is unnecessarily clouding the whole assessment process with inconsequential matters which may lead to unfounded conclusions. In fact, by mingling the previous assessments covered by TOPs 1 and 2, TOP 3 lacks a definite amount of tax liability, and as such, it does not purport to be a valid demand for payment of tax due~

DEC IS IO CTA A.C. Case No. 245 Page 9 of IS Petitioner's arguments in support of its prayer for refund, meanwhile, are all hinged on the claimed invalidity of TOPs 1, 2, and 3. Respondent's Arguments44 In refutation, respondent alleges that petitioner is an insurance business. Mutual Benefits Associations are also insurance companies. Thus, the LBT imposed under Section 143 (f) ofthe LGC is equally applicable to petitioner. Being a non-profit corporation is a non-issue. A Mutual Benefits Association which is non-profit does not mean that it is not doing or transacting an insurance business. It also does not mean that a Mutual Benefits Association should be exempted from the payment ofLBT. As long as an entity, whether or not it is a Mutual Benefits Association, or whether or not it is a non-stock, non-profit institution, earns income from doing insurance business, such entity is subject to LBT under Section 143 (f) ofthe LGC. More importantly, taxation is the rule. As long as there is no law granting petitioner an exemption from LBT, petitioner may be subjected to LBT. Respondent also raised an issue on the payment under protest made by petitioner considering that the same is not sanctioned by the LGC. She also further argued that petitioner's non-payment of additional filing fees with respect to the refund element of the Amended Petition is ground for the dismissal of such Amended Petition. The Ruling of the Court The Petition and Amended Petition are DENIED for lack of merit. Procedure for appealing LBT assessments. Before this Court rules on the substantive arguments set forth by petitioner against the validity of the LBT assessment contained in TOP 3, it must first determine whether or not petitioner complied with the procedure set fmih by statute in relation to protests of LBT assessmentsY 44 See Discussion, Respondent' s Memorandum , Records, pp. 498-509.

DECISION CTA A.C. Case No. 245 ~age 10 of 15 Central to this matter is Section 195 ofthe LGC, which provides for the remedies available to a taxpayer in protesting the assessments of business taxes, as follows: Section 195 . Protest of Assessment. - When the local treasurer or his duly authorized representative finds that correct taxes, fees, or charges have not been paid, he shall issue a notice of assessment stating the nature of the tax, fee, or charge, the amount of deficiency, the surcharges, interests and penalties. Within sixty (60) days from the receipt of the notice of assessment, the taxpayer may file a written protest with the local treasurer contesting the assessment; otherwise, the assessment shall become final and executory. The local treasurer shall decide the protest within sixty (60) days .fi'om the time ofits filing. If the local treasurer finds the protest to be wholly or partly meritorious, he shall issue a notice cancelling wholly or partially the assessment. However, if the local treasmer finds the assessment to be wholly or partly conect, he shall deny the protest wholly or partly with notice to the taxpayer. The taxpayer shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of the denial of the protest or .fi'om the lapse of the sixty (60)-day p eriodprescribed herein within which to appeal with the court ofcompetent jurisdiction otherwise the assessment becomes conclusive and unappealable. (Italics, Ours.) Based on the foregoing provisions, whenever a taxpayer receives a notice of assessment from a local treasurer, he or she can file a protest thereto with the local treasurer within 60 days from receipt of such notice of assessment. Thereafter, the local treasurer has 60 days to decide a protest filed by a taxpayer. Should the local treasurer wholly or partly deny the protest, the taxpayer then has 30 days to file an appeal with the regular courts from (1) the receipt of the denial of the protest; or (2) from the lapse of the 60-day period for the local treasurer to decide on the protest. Significantly, the failure of the local treasurer to decide a protest on time is deemed a "denial due to inaction" and as such can be acted upon by the regular courts. The taxpayer does not have the option to wait for an actual denial by the local treasurer before filing an appeal. Failure to file an appeal within the prescribed period makes the assessment conclusive and unappealable. This was shown in the case of China Banking Corporation vs. City Treasurer of Manila45 when the Supreme Court applied Section 195 of the LGC and ruled that the taxpayer there lost its right t~peal when it filed its appeal with the regular court one day late, to wity- 45 G.R. No. 204117, July I, 2015.

DECISION CTA A.C. Case No. 245 _Page I I o f 15 Decision of the CTA En Bane On appeal, the CTA En Bane affirmed the ruling of the CTA Division in toto, reiterating that the petition for review was filed out of time. It explained that from January 15, 2007, the date when CBC filed its protest, it had sixty (60) days or until March 16, 2007 to await the decision of the City Treasurer. Considering that no action was taken by the City Treasurer, CBC had until April 16, 2007 or 30 days from March 16, 2007, (April 15, 2007 being a Sunday), within which to appeal the inaction of the City Treasurer with the RTC, pursuant to Section 195 of the LGC. Upon examination, however, the CTA En Bane found that when CBC filed its petition for review before the RTC, it was already one day late. Thus, it lost its right to appeal and the assessment, dated January 11 , 2007, became conclusive and unappealable. The CTA En Bane then concluded that CBC was precluded from interposing the defense of legality or validity of the assessment. In its Memorandum, CBC insisted on the invalidity of the City Treasurer's assessment, this time, claiming that its petition for review filed with the RTC was timely filed. It explained that the 60-day period within which the City Treasurer should have acted on the protest, and the consequent 30-day period within which it had to appeal the inaction of the City Treasurer should have been reckoned not from January 15 , 2007, when it filed its letter questioning the imposition and paid the assessed amount, but from March 27, 2007, the day it filed the letter reiterating its objection to the City Treasurer imposition ofP154,398.50 and demanding the return ofthe said amount. With the reckoning point being March 27, 2007, CBC argued that the petition for review was filed well within the reglementary period because it had until June 25 , 2007 to file the said appeal. The Court, however, is of the view that the period within which the City Treasurer must act on the protest, and the consequent period to appeal a ' denial due to inaction,' should be reckoned from January 15, 2007, the date CBC filed its protest, and not March 27, 2007. Consequently, the Court finds that the CTA En Bane did not err in ruling that CBC had lost its right to challenge the City Treasurer's ' denial due to inaction.' On this matter, Section 195 of the LGC is clear: SECTION 195. Protest of Assessment. -When the local treasurer or his duly authorized representative finds that correct taxes, fees, or charges have not been paid, he shall issue a notice of assessment stating the nature of the tax, fee or charge, the amount of deficiency, the surcharges, interests and penalties. Within sixty (60) days from the receipt of the notice of assessment, the taxpayer may file a written protest with the local treasurer contesting the assessment; otherwise, the assessment shall become final and executory. The local treasurer shall decide the protest within sixty (60) days from the time of its filing. If the local treasurer finds the protest to be wholly or partly meritorious, he shall issue a notice canceling wholly or partially the assessment. However, if the / local treasurer finds the assessment to be wholly or partlyY

DECISION CTA A. C. Case No. 245 !'age 12 of 15 correct, he shall deny the protest wholly or partly with notice to the taxpayer. The taxpayer shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of the denial of the protest or from the lapse of the sixty (60)-day period prescribed herein within which to appeal with the court of competent jurisdiction otherwise the assessment becomes conclusive and unappealable. Time and again, it has been held that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. The failure to perfect an appeal as required by the rules has the effect of defeating the right to appeal of a party and precluding the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. At the risk of being repetitious, the Court declares that the right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. In the case of Team Pacific Corporation v. Josephine Daza,46 the Supreme Court, applying Section 195 of the LGC, ruled that the inaction of the local treasurer is appealable to a court of competent jurisdiction, to wit: A taxpayer dissatisfied with a local treasurer's denial of or inaction on his protest over an assessment has thirty (30) days within which to appeal to the court of competent jurisdiction. Under the law, said period is to be reckoned from the taxpayer's receipt of the denial of his protest or the lapse of the sixty (60)-day period within which the local treasurer is required to decide the protest, from the moment of its filing. This much is clear from Section 195 of the Local Government Code, ... Most relevant to this case, however, is the Decision in Public Safety Mutual Benefit Fund, Inc. v. Rosette F. Laquian, Acting City Treasurer, San Juan City,47 where the High Com1 dealt with petitioner's earlier judicial appeal against TOPs 1 and 2 in this wise: As correctly ruled by the CTA En Bane, Section 195 of Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC) provides in no uncertain terms the manner and period for a taxpayer to perfect its appeal from a denial or inaction of the Treasurer from the taxpayer's protest of an assessment against it. Here, it is clear from the records that petitioner filed its protest on the first Tax Order of Payment on December 29, 2015. Respondent had sixty (60) days to resolve the same, or until February 28, 2016. Notably, there was no action on respondent' s part. Hence, after the lapse of the sixty (60)-day period, petitioner should have appealed this denial due to inaction within thirty (30) days therefrom, or until March 29, 2016. However, petitioner only filed its petition on February 20, 2018, or almost two (2) years from the last day provided under Section 195 of the LGC. The said provision is clear that failure to do so renders the assessment ' conclusive and unappealable.V 46 G.R. No. 167732, July II , 2012. 47 G.R. No . 256741 (Resolution), August 4, 2021.

DEC IS ION CTA A. C. Case No. 24 5 Therefore, based on the foregoing jurisprudence on Section 195 ofthe LGC, the failure of the local treasurer to act on the taxpayer's protest within the 60-day period is tantamount to a "denial due to inaction." The taxpayer is mandated to elevate the said "denial due to inaction" to a court of competent jurisdiction within 30 days from the lapse of the 60-day period. It bears stressing that the perfection of appeal within the period prescribed under Section 195 ofthe LGC is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional.48 Petitioner failed to timely appeal respondent's denial due to inaction with the regular courts. TOP 3 became final, executory and unappealable. Applying the above discussion, the table below summarizes the relevant dates pertaining to the filing of the Protest against TOP 3 and the judicial appeal for its denial: Date of Last day for Actual day Last day for Date that Date that Earlier Last day Date of filin g Receipt of respondent to Protest petitioner date for filing of of the Appeal the TOP 3 filing a that petitioner decide on the actu a lly the appeal before RTC- against TOP received an between before the Branch 264 January 28, protest (i.e., filed the Protest 3 is deemed denial due 2019 49 against TOP 3 denied due to actual to inaction regular 60 days from Protest (i.e. , 60 days denial of its and receipt courts (i.e., from filing of inaction of actual receipt of the against TOP3 protest. denial of 30 days the protest) the Protest from the Notice of May 14, earlier type 20195 1 against of denial) Assessment) TOP3 May 12, March 29, March 13 , May 12, 2019 May 12, 2019 2019 June II , Jun e 13, 2019 201950 2019 201 952 Since TOP 3 was received by petitioner on January 28, 2019, petitioner had sixty days from such receipt, or until March 29, 2019, within which to file a protest against such LBT assessment. Since petitioner filed its Protest against TOP 3 on March 13, 2019, it timely filed its protest with respondent. Upon receipt of such protest on March 13, 2019, respondent then had 60 days from such receipt, or until May 12, 2019, within which to decide on such protest. Since petitioner did not receive an actual denial of its protest within such time period, petitioner's Protest against the TOP 3 is deemed denied due to inaction on May 12, 2019 regardless ifpetitionersubsequently received an actual denial of such protest on May 14, 2019~ 48 Supra note 15. 49 Annex " H", Petition , Records, pp. 85-8 7. 50 Annex "C", Petition , id. at 65-72. 51 Annex " D", Petition , id. at 73-74. 52 Annex "Q", Petition , id. at 126-1 5 1.

DECISION CTA A.C. Case No . 245 Thus, the 30-day period to file an appeal before the regular courts started to run on May 12,2019, giving petitioner until June 11,2019 to file an appeal before the regular courts. Unfortunately, petitioner belatedly filed its Appeal before RTC-Branch 264 on June 13 , 2019. Following such, RTC-Branch 264 never acquired jurisdiction over petitioner's appeal. To the point of being repetitive, perfection of an appeal under Section 195 of the LGC is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. The LBT assessments contained in TOP 3 have consequently become final, executory, and unappealable and this Comi can no longer entertain questions on or challenges to the validity of such. This Court deems it unnecessary to discuss the parties' remaining issues and arguments on TOP 3, given the above. The prayer for refund must also be denied. The Supreme Court already affirmed the validity of TOPs 1 and 2.53 As for TOP 3, the same has already become final, executory, and unappealable, as discussed above. Consequently, the validity of all three TOPs can no longer be questioned, and no refund or tax credit can be awarded to petitioner. ACCORDINGLY, the instant Petition and Amended Petition filed by petitioner PUBLIC SAFETY MUTUAL BENEFIT FUND, INC. are hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Associate Justice WE CONCUR: ~,. ~ ~'--- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice RES 53 Supra note 47.

DEC IS ION CTA A. C. Case No. 245 , Page 15 of 15 ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. ~. ~ --7\-__ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 ofthe Constitution and the Division Chairperson' s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Acting Presiding Justice