THE PROVINCE OF NUEVA VIZCAYA and the MUNICIPALITY CASTA?EDA, et al., v. CE CASECNAN WATER & ENERGY CO., INC., NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, as the beneficial owner of the Casecnan Project, and CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC THE PROVINCE OF NUEVA CTAEB NO. 2979 (CBAA Case Nos. L-60 &74) VISCAYA, herein represented by its Members: Honorable Governor ATTY. JOSE V. Present: GAMBITO, RHODA S. MORENO, in Ringpis-LibanJ P.J., her official capacity as the Provincial Bacorro-Villena, Treasurer of Nueva Viscaya, ENGR. Modesto-San Pedro, Reyes-Fajardo, JOSE L. CARREON,JR., in his official C u i - D avid, Ferrer-Flores, and capacity as Provincial Assessor of Angeles, ]]. Nueva Viscaya, MUNICIPALITY OF ALFONSO CASTANEDA, represented by its Honorable Mayor WILSON M. CAPIA-AO, RODRIGO S. CAYTON, JR., in his capacity as Municipal Treasurer of Alfonso Castaneda and HESPER H. VALENZUELA as the Municipal Assessor of Alfonso Castaneda, Petitioners -Appellants, - versus - CE CASECNAN WAT ER & Promulgated: ENERGY CO., INC., NATIONAL .FEB 1 2 2026 IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, as the beneficial owner of the Casecnan Project, and CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, R espondeJI!s-Appellees. X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X DECISION RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.J.: Before this Court is the Petition for Review flied by Petitioners on Septemb er 6, 20241 assailing the Resolutions dated January 30, 20242 and June 1 Rollo, C l'.\ I ~ H o. 2973, pp. 26--15 with ,\nncxc.:,;. z Jbiu., pp. -16-61 .

DEC!SIOI' CT.\ EB NO. 2979 21, 2024,3 promulgated by the Central Board of. \ssessment Appeals (C:Bc\, \) in CBA.�\ Case Nos. L-60 & 74, entitled National liTigation Admini.rtration, a.r tbe beneft,ial owmr of tbe Ca.reoJa/1 Project a11d CE Cmemm; !Fater and Ene;gy Co., In,:, ;�.r. Tbe Lom!Board ofA.r.re.crment Appea!.r ofthe Province ojN!Ieva Vi.r,trya, and Tbe Provi11a oJNmva Vi.mzya and tbe l\Iuniripality ofA!fon.ro Cmta;/eda, et aL The dispositive portion of the January 30, 2024 Resolution reads: "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Respondents- Appellees Province of Nueva Viscaya and the Municipality of Alfonso Castatl.eda, arc hereby ordered to refund the amount of Two Hundred Nine Million Five Hundred Twenty Seven (ri') Thousand and Thirty hve (J�i,) Pesos and Seventy Two (.ri') Centavos (P209,527,035.72) to Petitioner- Appellant CE Casecnan Water & Energy Co., Inc. SO ORDERED." The dispositive portion of the June 21, 2024 Resolution reads: "WHEREFORE, in view of the above, Respondent- ,\ppcllces' Motion for Reconsideration dated 15 March 2024 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED." THE PARTIES Petitioner Province of Nueva Viscaya (Province of Nueva Viscaya) is a local government unit duly created under existing laws and herein represented by the Provincial Covcrnor, Hem. Jose V. Cambito, who is of legal age, married, Filipino citizen, and with office address at the Office of the Governor, Executive Building, Provincial Capitol, Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya. Petitioner Provincial Treasurer of Nueva Viscaya (Provincial Treasurer), Rhoda D. Soriano-i\loreno, is of legal age, married, Filipino citizen, and with office address at Provincial Treasury's Office, Executive Building, Provincial Capitol, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya. Petitioner Provincial .\ssessor of Nueva Viscaya (Provincial Assessor), Jose L. Carreon, Jr., of legal age, married, Filipino citizen, and with office address at Provincial .\sscssmcnt Office, Ba\'ombong, N ucva \"iscaya. ' Ibid .. pp. (12-63.

DEC:Io;J(l'.: CL\ Ell '.:0. 2~;9 Petitioner ,\lunicipality of "-\lfonso Casta�1ecla (i\Iunicipality of AJfonso Casta1kda), is a local government unit duly created under existing laws and herein represented by the Municipal i\Iayor, Hem. \'Cilson i\L Capia-ao, of legal age, married, Filipino citizen, and with office address at i\Iunicipal Hall, c\lfonso Casta�icda, Nueva \riscaya. Petitioner Municipal Treasurer of Alfonso Castaneda (Provincial Treasurer), Rodrigo S. Cayton, .Jr., is of legal age, married, Filipino citizen, and with office address at i\Iunicipal Hall, Alfonso Castaneda, Nueva Viscaya. Petitioner Municipal c\ssessor of c\lfonso Cast~u1eda (i\Iunicipal "-\ssessor), Hesper H. \' alcnzucla, is of legal age, married, Filipino citizen, and with office address at i\Iunicipal Hall, ,-\lfonso Castaneda, Nueva Viscaya. Respondent CE Casecnan Water & Energy Co., Inc. (CE Casecnan), is a private corporation that developed, constructed and operated the Casecnan Project under a Build-Operate-Transfer (BO'l) contract it entered into with the National Government through National Irrigation c\dministration (NL\). Respondent National Irrigation Administration (NL-\), a govermnent instrumentality representing the National Government in the Build-Operate- Transfer (BCYl) contract covering the Casecnan ProJect. Respondent CBAA is made a party to the present Petition for Review in view of the assailed Resolutions it issued.4 THE FACTS The facts of the case are as follows: On November 13, 1994, CE Casccnan and the NIA entered into a Build- Operate-Transfer contract (the Project) whereby CE Casecnan agreed to deliver to Pantabangan Reservoir all water diverted from the Casecnan \'Vatershed and all net electrical energy generated by the project.5 The Project is a combined irrigation and hydroelectric power generation facility intended to harness the full potential of the Pantabangan Dam in Gap an, Nueva Ecija, by diverting waters form the rivers of Nueva Viscaya to the Pantabangan Reservoir. The Project's power generation capacitY supplements the energy supply to the Luzon grid and augments power generation in the existing Pantabangan and i\lasiway hydroelectric power plants in Nueva Ecija.'' �1 1\�ririnn fur RL"\'iL'W, P- 3--1. 'S(: lkci~ion, \ ;_\l.. :"\<l. ~-11302, l:l'bruar\' I, 2!C1. 1' Ibid.

DECISIO'-: CL\. EB ~0. 29-9 On September 28, 2003, the Provincial Assessor's Office of Nueva Yiscaya sent a letter to C:E Casecnan informing it of the initial appraisal and assessment of the real properties of CE C:asecnan7 On February 27, 2004, CE Casecnan received a letter from the Office of the i\lunicipal �"�\sscssor and Treasurer of Casta11eda, Nueva Viscaya, requesting it to settle the Real Property Taxes (RPT) due for the years 2003 and 2004. CE Casecnan endorsed the letter to NL\. because their agreement provides that all fees paid to the government shall be for the account of NL \. i\cting on the endorsement, NL-\ filed its Protest to the LBAA of the Province of l\:ueva \riscaya.R On December 1, 2004, the LK\A denied the protest of NL\. 9 On February 1, 2005, the Office of the Provincial Treasurer issued a Final Demand addressed to RespondenL\ppellee CE Casecnan for the payment of RPT in the amount ofP229, 680,604.27. On :\lay 5, 2005, CE Casecnan received another demand from the Provincial Treasurer for payment of RPT for the years 2003 to 2004 in the total amount of Php238,368,919.331 " Since C:E C:asccnan did not receiVe any communication from NL\, Cl ~ Casecnan paid the RPT in the aggregate amount of Php250,734,306.98 under protest. Later, Respondent-_-\ppellce demanded reimbursement from NL-\ invoking the provisions of their agreements.'' On .\ugust 23, 2005, CE Casccnan filed a Protest before Petitioner Provincial�freasurer requesting the review of the assessment made against it.'' On October 15, 2005, the Provincial Treasurer dismissed the Protest filed by CE Casccnan. Aggrieved, CE Casecnan ftlcd an appeal to the LR\,\u On October 20, 2006, the LBA.-\ rendered a Decision denying CE Casecnan's appeal. The LR-\_A held that Section 234 (C) of the Local Government Code (LGC) 14 is not applicable to the case since CE Casecnan is -Ibid. s Ibid 'I Ibid 1 ~' Ibid. II Ibid. I~ Ibid. I) Ibid. 11 Section 234. L\.'tlllj!!io!!..-_(!"OJI! l{ea/ PmjN'r(r '1 (t.\.'. - J 'he f1Jllowing ~lt'L' exempted from p-,1ymcnt 11f the real pn1pcrry mx: xxx ';c~; .\llmxhtnnil'~ and L'L]Uipmcnt tlLlf arc acrually, dirccrly :md c-.;clu~i\�c�l:� u~cd b\ lou! \\�,Her d1~1rio~ ~md gm�L�rnmc�nr 0\\'llcd Ill' rontrlllkd Cll!'J11lr~nion~ cng~l)-;l'd in the ~uppl\' :md di~tribution of \\':Her :md/1Jr gc�nn:Hi1m :md tLlll~mi~~i~Jil 11f dccrric jliJ\\'n;

P"ge 5 of 16 DECISIO'\ CL\ Ell '\0. 2'r9 not a local water district (L\\/D) or a government owned or controlled corporation (GOCC). 1' Thereafter, NL\ and CE Casecnan separately appealed the case to the CK\A questioning the RPT assessments. Eventually, the appeals were consolidated by C:Hc\.-\ 16 On Decernber 5, 2013, the CBA"\ dismissed the appeals holding that the machineries and equipment arc not exempt from RPT pursuant to Section 234 of the LGC since CE Casecnan is not an L\'{!D or a GOC:C. Moreover, it ruled that the assessments against C:E C:asecnan have become finaL 17 Meanwhile, Executive Order No. 173 (f�:O 173) 18 was issued by President Benig110 Aquino III, reducing and/ or condoning all liabilities for RPT for all years up to 2014 on property, machinery, and equipment actually and directly used by independent power producers for the production of electricity under BOT contracts. On January 22, 2014, CE Casecnan moved for reconsideration of the C:BA.A Decision. 19 On January 28, 2024, NI.A filed by registered mail Its "Motion for Reconsideration""0 of the CR\A Decision. On .\ugust 21, 2015, the CB. \.\ issued a Resolution modifying its earlier decision and declared null and void the assessments issued by the Provincial Assessor's Office against CE Casccnan for failure of the Province of Nueva \'iscaya to enact a tax ordinance for the years 2003 and 2004. Thus, the C:R�\"�\ declared as null and void the subsequent collection of RPT made by the Provincial Treasurer. The CR.�\.-\ gave merit to NL\'s argument that there was no valid and legal tax ordinance which would support the assessments made by the local assessor. Thus, the Province of Nueva \'iscaya has no authority to impose the RPT against Respondent-I\ppellee CE Casecnan. 21 Thereafter, C:E C:asecnan flied a Petition for Review before the Court En Ba11t on November 6, 2015, docketed as CTi\ EB No. 1381, entitled "CE Cm-ecnm1 Jf7ater a/1{1 Em1;gJ' Compa11y. l11c. JJJ. Tbe Pro!JLI!te ofi\Jue!Jtl Vi.rmya, PrOl!tlhial Trea.mrer oli\~mm [ 7i.rmya, Ojjlte oltbe Allllltapa! AJJes.ror and Trea.wrer l\Imziiipality ol 10 SC Dcci:-;ion, C.lt '\:cJ. 2-l-1302. l;chruary 1. 20.:?.1 11' Ibid. 1- Ibid. 1�' Rcducri(J!1 .tnd ( :c JndcJ!laticm c1f lk:d ]1n>pcrtl� �I ':txc~ :tnd 1ntnl�~t/ l 1 cnalric~ \,;:-c~,;cd em the ]>c>\Vcr ( ;cncr:tti,>n I;:Kilitic~ c1f Imlcpcndcn t l c1 J\\"l'f ] 1n Jd uccrs L'ndcr Hu ild -( )pcr:ltc-� !'ran,; t-cr ( :c 111 traer,; with ( ;cJ\Trl1!lll"llt-( hvncd :1 nd / c>r-( :c m tn ,]led (:cnpclr:ltill!l:'. un.\ -:s, I'! Docket. C\Sl' \."o~. 1.-60 & pp. -9-1-82-1. ~o Ibid .. pp. 825-tD.:?.. ~~ S(: I )n:i~icm. (;. R. '\c >. 2-l-1302, I;cbru:1r;.� 1. 2021.

DFCTSIO'-: CL\ EB ~0. 2~"~ /l!fomo Caslamda Prol;inte ol JVmva T7 ism)'a. J\'ational liTigation AdmimJiration and Depmtmwt o/r!nanre, aJ f\:ecessmy Parties" insisting that it is not liable to pay the assessed RPT because there was no valid tax ordinance authori%ing the impm;ition ofRPT for taxable years 2003 to 2005. Hence, it prayed for the refund of the amount in paid under protest. Likewise, it requested the Court En Bane to apply the provisions of EO 173. On November 17, 2017, the CTA En Bane promulgated a Decision in CL\ EB No. 1381 affirming the rulings of the LB,-\[\ and the CR-\A that the properties, machinen�, and equipment of CE Casecnan are not exempt from RPT The CL\ En Bane, however, agreed with the CR\"\ that the assessments made by the local assessor against CE Casecnan was not supported by a valid and legal tax ordinance. Hence, CE Casecnan is entitled to refund. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads: "WHEREFORE, premises consiclerecl, the Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the CR\Xs ,\ssailecl Decision elated December 5, 2013 is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO, while the "-\ssailed Resolution dated .-\ugust 21, 2015 ts hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. This case is herebv REMANDED to the CB,\A, which is directed to determine the amount to be refunded to C:E C:asecnan, if aJW. SO ORDERED." On reconsideration, the CL\ En Bane modified the Decision but only to declare that the provisions of EO No. 173 should be applied in determining Cl �: C:asecnan's RPT liabilitv."" Thereafter, Province of Nueva Viscaya filed its Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, docketed as C.R. No. 241302, entitled 'Tbe PrrJl!inee ofJ\'1/e!;a Vz~rmya, PrO!Jimial T1~a.mrer o/Nmva Vis'"!J'CI. Office of the i\1mudpal AJJeJJor and Tl~CIJ!trer J\I;!lli(tpality ol Alfomo Cmtamda Prol'inre ol Nue/){/ Visa~)'a f!J'. CE Cmemn U?c1ter and EnnZ,y Co11tpan)'. Inr., 1\!ational Inigation Administration and Depmtment o/r!mm(e, a.r NecesJa!]' Parties," (SC Decision) to question the C:TA En Bane's application of the provisions of EO No. 173. Petitioner urged the Supreme Court to declare EO No. 173 as unconstitutional and violative of the principle of local autonomy. i\Ioreover, petitioner Province of Nueva Viscaya insisted that the tax assessments for the years 2003 to 2005 are valid assessments since Tax

DECISIO~ CL\ EB 0:0. 29-9 Ordinance No. 2000-003 can be used as basis for the assessments of properties for the ,�cars 2003 to 2005." In the SC Decision, the SC ruled that the CBAA and the CL\ En Ba11e . incorrectlv concluded that the assessments issued bv- the Provincial Assessor against respondent CE Casccnan for the years 2003 to 2005 is null and void because no valid and legal tax ordinance exists to support the same. The said SC: Decision became final and executory on July 13, 2022.'4 Pursuant to the directive of the Supreme Court in the SC Decision, the case was remanded to the CBAA for the determination of refundable amount to CE Casccnan. On January 30, 2024 the C:R-\/\ issued the first assailed Resolution ordering the Province of l': ucva Yiscaya and i\lunicipality of .-\lfonso Castafieda to refund to CE Casecnan the amount of Two Hundred Nine Million Five Hundred Twenty-Seven Thousand and Thirty-Five Pesos, and Seventy-Two Centavos (Php 209,527,035.72) representing the real property taxes paid by Ce Casecnan for the vears 2003 to 2005. On ,\larch 25, 2024, Petitioners filed their J\lotion for Reconsideration dated i\larch 15, 2024, questioning the ruling of the CK\.A. The CB,\A issued on June 21, 2014 the second assailed Resolution denying for lack of merit the Petitioners' Motion for 1\.econsideration. Petitioners filed on \ugust 9, 2024 a "Formal Entry of "�\ppearance with J\lotion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review" before the Court E11 Bane, praying that they be allowed to file the Petition for Review until September 8 ? 0 .7...4... ,,, '~ On i\ugust 21, 2024, Petitioners filed through a private couner, a "i\lanifestation"'C' stating that they inadvertently overlooked to pay the fees for the "Formal Entry of "�\ppcarance with J\lotion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review." On September 6, 2024, Petitioners filed by registered mail the instant Petition for Review. ~-' I d. ~~ l~ollu, Entry ofludgmcnt. pp. 161-16::::. 2'i Rollo, pp. 1-6. 2(' Ibid., pp. 10-12, with :1nm�xcs.

DECISIU'\ CLI Ell '\0. 2~-'! On January 6, 2025, the Court En Bane issued a Resolution: 1) noting Petitioners' "Formal Entry of Appearance", "1\Ianifestation", and "Petition for Review" filed via registered mail on September 6, 2024; 2) granting the \Iotion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review; 3) ordering Petitioners to submit proof of their receipt of the assailed CKL\ Resolution dated June 21, 2024, within five (5) days from notice; and 4) ordering Respondents to file their Comment to Petitioners' Petition for Review within ten (1 0) days from notice. "1 On January 24, 2025, CE Casecnan flied a "\Iotion for Time"28 praying that it be given an additional period of ten (1 0) days from January 24, 2025 or until February 3, 2025, to file its Comment on the Petition for Review. 0 January 30, 2025, the Court E11 Ba11e issued a J\linute Resolution granting the "rllotion for Time." On February 4, 2025, the Court En Bane received Petitioners' "Compliance and Submission"'" filed by registered mail on January 23, 2025, submitting their proof of receipt of the June 21, 2024 Resolution. On February 5, 2025, the Court E11 Ba11e received CE Casecnan's "\Ianifestation rc: service ad filing of Comment/Opposition"3" stating that on February 3, 2025, it filed by registered mail its "Comment/ Opposition to the Petition for Re1;iew dated September 5, 2025."31 On February 12, 2025, the Judicial Records Division of this Court issued a Records Verification Repott32 stating that no comment has been filed by NL\. On February 19, 2025, the Court En Bane issued a Minute Resolution which: 1) noted the Petitioners' "Compliance and Submission", CE-Casecnan's "\lanifestation re: service and filing of Comment/ Opposition," and "Comment on/Opposition to the Petition for Review dated September 5, 2024;" 2) deemed Petitioners' submissions in its "Compliance and Submission" as sufficient compliance to the Court's Resolution dated January 6, 2025; and 3) ordered the instant case submitted for decision. THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES Petitioners ra1se the following issues for the Court En Bam's consideration: ~- Ibid., pp. 95-100 2~ !bid .. pp. !Ul-106. 2'1 Ibid., pp. 11()-ll::i. \\'ith ~Ht:Khmcnt~ ;11 Ibid .. PP- 121- 123. \Yith ;l!lllCXL':' ' 1 Ibid .. PP� 31-1--339. \\"ith ~1Il11L'XC:'. >2 Eo!lo. Ibid. p. -1-lJS.

DECISIO:\ CL\ EB :\0. :>9-9 1. \'\'hether or not Petitioner can be held liable to pay CE Casecnan any tax refund despite the fact that its 2003, 2004 and 2005 Assessments are considered valid, binding and lcgallv issued assessments; 2. \'Vhcther or not a written claim for refund under the LGC must be cornplied first prior to the payment of the alleged tax refund; and 3. \'Vhether or not CE Casecnan is entitled to receive the amount of tax to be refunded as determined by the CBAA THE ARGUMENTS Petitioners claim that all RPT paid by CE Casecnan over its real properties for the years 2003 to 2005 arc valid because they arc based on validly issued assessments as declared by the Supreme Court in the SC Decision; that assuming CE C:asecnan is entitled to refund, the same is not automatic because the amount is a factual matter that must be threshed out with certainty in the normal course and in accordance with Section 253 of the LGC; and that even assuming that the CK-\A correctly determined the amount of tax to be refunded by Petitioners, CE Casccnan is not entitled to receive the said tax refund based on the tax assumption arrangement between CE Casecnan and NL\. Conversely, CE Casecnan submits that the Court En Ba11r has no Jurisdiction over the instant case for being filed out of time and for failure to submit the material portions of the record necessary for the immediate resolution of the case; that the CR\A correctly proceeded to determine the amount to be refunded to CE Casecnan; that it is not necessary for them to file a writtct:'. claim for refund because to do so would effectively req' uire them to relitigate the same issues already ruled upon by the Supreme Court in the final and executory Supreme Court Decision; that the CBAA correctly determined the amount of refund in its favor; that there was notlung left for the CB_-\._\ to do but to implement the SC Decision by computing the amount of refund based on the records and the documents submitted by the parties; and that C:E C:asecnan is entitled to claim and receive the refund notwithstanding the tax assumption agreement since it was CE C:asecnan which paid the assessments under protest, and exhausted the available remedies until final adjudication by the Supreme Court. THE RULING OF THE COURT EN BANC Jurisdiction ofthe Court

DECISICJ'\ CL\ EB 0:0. 2'F9 On [\larch 25, 2024, the CBAc\ received Petitioners' ";\lotion for Reconsideration."3�1 On June 21, 2024, the CBc\~\ issued the assailed Resolution denying Petitioners' motion. Said Resolution was received by Petitioners on july 10, 2024. From receipt of the said Resolution on)uly 10,2024, Petitioners have until ,\ugust 9, 2024 within which to file the Petition for Review before the Court En Bane, pursuant to Sections 3 (c) and 4 (c), Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax ,\ppeals, as amended provides: SEC. 3. l.Vbo 111(!)' appeal,� period to file petition.~ XXX (c) a party adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Central Board of ~-\.ssessment c\ppeals and the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction may appeal to the Court by filing before it's a petition for review within thirty days from receipt of a copy of the questioned decision or ruling. SEC. 4~ \Vhere to appeal; mode of appeal.~ XXX (c) An appeal from a decision or ruling of the Central Board of .\sscssmcnt ,\ppeals or the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction shall be taken to the Court by filing before it a petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The Court en bane shall act on the appeal. On August 9, 2024, Petitioners f!led by registered mail their "Formal Entry of ~-\.ppearance with [\lotion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review," prm�ing that they be granted an extension of thirty (30) days from August 9, 2024 or until September 8, 2024 to file their Petition for Review. On January 6, 2025, the Court En Bane issued a Resolution granting Petitioners' motion. The instant "Petition for Review" was filed on September 6, 2024, within the extended period. Hence, this Petition for Review was timely filed.

DECISTO'-: CL\ Ell '-'0. 2~'9 Whether PetitionerH should refund to CE Ca8eenan the amount of Php209,52~035.72 a8 determined by the CBAA After due consideration of the facts, issues and arguments raised by the parties, the Court En Ba11c finds no reason to reverse the assailed Resolutions of the CB,\A. The Court E11 Balle notes that the arguments presented herein arc a mere rehash of the arguments offered by Petitioners in their l\Iotion for Reconsideration before the CB,-\~-\. Nonetheless, the Court En Ba11e shall pass upon Petitioners' arguments. CE Casecnan is not required to ftle a new written claim for refund. The Supreme Court specifically ruled in the SC Decision that CE Casecnan is entitled to a refund of RPT, subject to the determination by the CB,\:\ of the amount to be refunded based on the provisions of EO No. 173. The pertinent portions of the said SC Decision reads: "Pursuant to the power of the local government units to fix the assessment level and adopt a schedule of fair market values, the Province of l\.'ueva Vizcaya enacted Tax Ordinance No. 99-002 adopting the 1999 Schedule of Fair Market Values for the different classes of real properties in Nueva Vizcaya and Tax Ordinance No. 2000-003 fixing the assessment levels for the years 2000 to 2002. \'\ihile the said tax ordinances are specifically for the years 2000 to 2002 only, the failure of the Province to update its schedule of fair market values and assessment levels will not prevent it from lev7ing RPT using as basis the existing assessment levels and schedule of fair market value. The ruling of the Cl'A E11 Bane invalidating the assessment of the RPT in the absence of an ordinance fixing the assessment levels and fair market values is dangerous and it is tantamount to curtailing the power of local governments to levy RPT. The prescription under Section 219 of the LCC for local governments to undertake a general revision of real property assessments within two years after the effectivity of the LGC and every three years thereafter is only to make sure that the schedule of fair market values and assessment levels capture the true economic realities in the community where the propertv is located taking lnto consideration inflation and other economic imlicators.

P<1ge 12 of 16 DECISJO:\ CL\ EB c;o. 29'9 Hence, the assessment of RPT against CE Casecnan was valid. Be that as it may, the provisions of EO No. 173 which reduces and condones real property taxes and interest/penalties assessed on the power generation facilities of independent power producers under build-operate-transfer contracts with government-owned and/ or -controlled c011Jorations is applicable in this case. The pertinent provisions of EO No. 173 are reproduced below: XXX XXX XXX \'(!HEREAS, various Local Government Units (LG Us) have taken the position that Independent Power Producers (IPPs) operating within their territories which are not GOCCs are not entitled to the exemptions/privileges of GOCCs with respect to real property taxes on their property, machinery and equipment used in the generation and distribution of electric power, and have threatened enforcement action against the IPPs, including the levy and sale at public auction of the affected properties; XXX XXX XXX NOW, THEREFORE, I, BENIGNO S. AQUINO lll, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby order: SECTION 1. Reduction and Condonation. All liabilities for real property tax on property, machinery and equipment (including any special levies accruing to the Special Education Fund) actually and directly used by IPPs for the production of electricity under Build-Operate-Transfer contracts (whether denominated Power Purchase c\greements, Energy Conversion c\greements or other contractual agreements) with GOCCs, assessed by LG Us and other entities authorized to impose real property tax, for all years up to 2014, are hereby reduced to an amount equivalent to the tax due if computed based on an assessment level of fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of said property, machinery and equipment depreciated at the rate of two percent (2%) per annum, less any amounts already paid by the IPPs, All fines, penalties and interests on such deficiency real propertT tax liabilities are also hereby condoned and the concerned IPPs arc relieved from payment thereof. x x x x (Emphasis supplied)

DECISIO" CL\ EI3 "0. 2979 In this case, it is undisputed that CF~ Casecnan is an independent power producer (IPP) that entered into a build- operate-transfer contract with NIA, a COCC. Hence, the provisions of EO No. 173 should be applied in its favor. The Province of Nueva \'izcaya's claim that EO No. 173 can only be applied to existing tax liabilities, and not to those that are paid, as in this case, is unmeritorious. EO No. 173 docs not distinguish between outstanding liabilities and those that had been paid at the time the executive order became effective. Section 1 of EO No. 173 is clear that the reduced amount of RPT under the executive order should be deducted from whatever is paid by the IPP. Hence, the C:T\ En Bane correctly remanded the case to the CB,\,\ for the computation of the amount to be refunded to CE Casecnan, if any, taking into consideration the provisions of EO No. 173." The dispositive portion of the SC Decision reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiormi is PARTIALLY GRANTED in so far as to declare that the assessment issued by the Provincial Assessor's Office of the Province of Nueva Vizcaya against CE Casecnan \Vater and Energy Company, Inc. for the years 2003 to 2005 as valid. The Decision dated November 17, 2017 and the Resolution dated July 31, 2018 of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A EB Case No. 1381 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the Central Board of Assessment ,\ppeals to determine the amount to be refunded to CE C:asecnan \Vater and Energy Company, Inc., if any, taking into consideration the provisions of Executive Order No. 173. SO ORDERED." Thus, the CBA.A. correcth� proceeded to determine the amount to be refunded to CE Casecnan. The Court En Ba11t finds erroneous the Petitioners' argument that CE Casecnan must first file a written claim for refund in accordance with the provision of Section 253 of the LGC. Section 253 of the LGC: provides as follows: "Section 253. Repayment of E.x-rnsitJe Collediom. - When an assessment of basic real property tax, or any other tax levied under this Title, is found to be illeo�al or erroneous and the tax is accordingh� reduced or adjusted, the taxpayer may file a written

DF.CISIO" CL\ EB :"0. 2'r9 claim for refund or credit for taxes and interests with the provincial or city treasurer within two (2) years from the elate the taxpayer is entitled to such reduction or adjustment." (Empbmis otm) Section 253 of the LGC speaks of assessment of RPT that was found to be illegal or erroneous. In this case, the tax assessments in c1uestion were declared valid by the Supreme Court. Thus, Section 253 of the LGC is not applicable in this case. :\Iorcover, to require C:E Casecnan to file a separate written claim for refund would result to re-litigation of the same issues that were already ruled upon by the Supreme Court. Likewise, the idea of filing a new tax refund claim would violate the immutability of final and executory judgments. Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land. Any act which violates tlus principle must immediately be struck down34 CE Casecnan is entitled to receive the refund. C:E C:asccnan paid under protest on July 25, 2005, the RPT in the amount of Php250,734,306. 983'' to aw>id disruption of its operations and to prevent any stoppage of water and power supply in the Province of Nueva Ecija, despite the tax assumption agreement between CE Casecnan and NL\. The SC Decision clearly recognizes CE Casecnan's right to claim and receive the refund a,; ,;tated in the previously C[UOtcd dispositive portion of the SC Decision. Thus, CE Casecnan is entitled to claim and receive the refund pursuant to the final and executory SC Decision. The CK\A correctly determined the amount of tax to be refunded. 1\ftcr consideration, the Court E11 Ba11c gives great weight to the Resolution of the CBAA. The CBAA detcmuncd the amount of refund in favor 1 ~ .lfolll1'ht�m;o.w l'.f. Bal!!lo, (; .R. :\o. :2"~(J:'i:'i_)_ Dcccmbn 2. 20:21). citing Pcop/1' /'. Jan!lr(~O. (;. 1\. ]\ o. 228B 19, _lul~- 2-1, 2019 '" H.ulh LT\ 1-:h '\,_ 2979. p. 2-1-2

DECISIO~ CL\ EB 'iO. 29c9 of CE Casecnan based on the records available and the documents submitted to it by the parties. The findings of fact by the CBAA and the determination by the latter of the refundable amount shall not be disturbed without any showing of grave abuse of discretion considering that the CR\A is in the best position to analyze the documents presented by the parties. In view of the foregoing, the Court En BaHt finds that Petitioners have not sufficiently established their case. ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~- ~,,.,.., - - MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice WE CONCUR: ~ 9:unr f.~- ~ t=~�~ fVY MARIAN ~ REYEg-FAJARDO I\ssociate Justice ur-!k~A~?J'AtAmf-kD;;Af.vm "\ssociate Justice ~~K,~..t.~L> CO~~ G. NER~LO'!tllis Associate Justice

Page 16 o[ 16 DECISIO'.: CLI Ell "Cl. :'979 .Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to ~-\rticlc \'III, Section 13 of the Constitution, 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. ~. -'Lt- J-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS~LIBAN Presiding Justice