CTA Case No. 848 (Resolution)

'-- a&lf..Ptmbc OF THE J;'"HILlP.f'll"'l~ COURT OF TAX ~p~ MANU..A THE PROVD CE OF B T C. T. Ao AND THE MUNICIP LITV OF LIMAV, BAT. , C I Oo 848 Petitionersg versus - STMDARD VAO..JUI\ HEFilTNG CD FOR.AT.L (PHILIPPil ES) and BOARD OF A SE SMEl T APPEALS, BATfo.Ai\) , Respondent so ESOLUTIO � This is in connection with the 11Motion to Dis- miss ' Second Amended Petition for Review'u filed bv respondent Standard- Vacuum efining Corporation � (Philippinesj on August 1, 1900 on the ground � that this Court has no jurisdiction over the instant pe - tition for review. It appears that the decision of the Board of Assessment Appeals for the Province of Bataan from which petitioners are appealing wa s promulgated on pril 29� 1960 and served upon the latter on Mav 6, 1960o On June 4, 1960 , counsel for petitioners filed a " otice of AppeaP' together with a 11 eGJ)rd on Appealft with this Court bv registered mail with- out remitting the corresponding doc ket feeso The Clerk of Cou�rt of the Court of Tax Appeals, in a letter dated June 9 ~ ~960 , informed c ounsel for pe - titioners of the require ents of Kule 5 of the Rules of this Court regarding the filing of an appeal thereto . Upon re ceipt thereof on June 10~ 1960 , _1.3.1

i?..E30LUT10�. - C.T. A. CA E NOo 848 - 2- � the petitioners r eadily comp lied bv filing a '' Peti- tion for .R.e view�s on June 13, 19EO and pavin g t he doc ke.t fee of x-2)0 .COo Subs equentlv, t he pe tition f or r eview wa s amend d on June 24 1 19 EO. e s pondent t ~ nd ard Vgcuurn Re fining Corpor a- tion (Philipp i ne s) filed a l11 lotion to Dismiss:1 t he am~ n ded petition for review - on Julv 12, 19EO. Peti- tioners filed their opposition thereto on Julv 16, 19EO and at t he same time filed a 41 Second Amended Pe- tit ion for eview41 .. Subsequentlv 1 res pondent filed a 11l 1otion to Dis- iss 1 econd mended Petition for Revieww a which was likewise opposed bv petitionerso The issues are the following~ 1. hether or not the petitioners, Province of dataan and Municipalitv of Limav, Bat a an~ can appeal from the decision of the Board of Assessment ppeals of Bataan to this Court, pursuant to Section 11 of Uepublic Act o. 1125; ~ 2a ' hether or not the petition for review was filed beyond the 30- dav period provided for bv law; and 3. ~J hether or not the "Second Arnended Petition / for Review" is fatallv defective in view of the fact that& (a) it was filed without leave of Court; (b) the amended portions were not appro- priatelv marked as required bv the Rules of Court; and I'

H.ESOLUTION - .T. A. CASE NO . 848 - 3- (c) it �seeks to add a new partv to the present case, without order or leave of court � .(In connection with the first issue p we believe that the Province of Bataan and the ~nicipalitv of Lim~v� Bataan, cannot appeal the decision of the Board of Assessment Appeals of Bataan to this Court . The pertinent provisions of Republic Ac~ No . 1125 provide: useco 7o Jurisdictione- The Court of Tax Appeals shall exercise exc lusive ap- pellate jurisdiction to review bv appeal, as herein provided - X X X X "(3 Decisions of provincial and citv Boards of Assessment Appeals in cases ' in- volving the assessment and taxation of real propertv or other matters arising under the Assess ent Law, including rules and regu- lations relative thereto. �� "~e c. 11. ho av appea ; effe ct of appeal o- Anv person, association or corp- oration adver selv affected bv a decision or ruling of the Collector of Internal Revenue , the Collector of Custo1s or anv provincial or cit Board of Assessment Appeals mav file an appeal in the Court of Tdx Appeals Within thirty davs after the receipt of such decision or rulingo X X X 11 Petitioners emphaticallv argue that since the word ncorporation , as used in the above - quoted sta- tutorv provision , is not qualified , it could mean to include both private and public corporationso Inas- 1 uch as the province and the municipalitv involved h rein are public corporations dulv constituted under our laws and adverselv affected bv the dec ision of

RESOLUTIO.J - - 4 ... C. T. A. CASE NO . 848 � the Boar d of A$se ssment Appeal s of Bat aan , it i s conc luded that thev have a r ight to c ome to this Cour t for redr e ss. e c annot agr ee with petitioners' argument~ \ie are of the opinion that even if the - law as em- bodied in s aid pr ovis ion did not qualifv the word ,, c or poration11 , vet , petitioners do not fall within it s meaning . As a matter of fa ct, the legal que s- tion of whether the Government , and this includes the petitioners herein (Sec o 2, Re v ~ Admo Code) , can appeal to this Court ha s alreadv been s quarelv dec ided bv the Supreme Courto In the c ase of the Collector of Cust oms v. The Court of Tax Appeal s and the Co ,miss ioner of Cust oms ; (G ~ . . Oo L- 8811 , Oct . 31 , 1957), the Supr eme Court s peaking thru N~ . J~stic e Felix, in holding that the Govern~nt cannot appeal to the Court of Ta x ppeals said: "Republic Act l o. 1125 , which wa s ap- pr oved on June 16 , 1954, bec ame ver v spe - c ific when it gave an enumeration of tho s e who mav appeal f r om a dec i s ion or ruling of the Coll ector of Internal evenue , the Com- missioner of Cu stoms or Board of ssessment Appeals . Under this law g the right to ap- peal from dec isions or ruling s of said of - fi c ials is allowed ~ to per s on sg asso- ciations or corporations adverselv affected bv the same, and well knowing the c onnota- tion of the legal maxim 1 inclu s io uniu s e st exclusio alterious', the Governrent i s cer- J � tainlv not one of themov (Undersc oring supplied o) And lo.'lr. Ju s tice Conc epc ion , in hi s concurring opinion in the same c ase, added thata y /,...--=--- 1

C.I.A. ro. 848 - 5- vx x x whereas said Section 11 grants to 'anv person, association or corporation adverselv affected bv a de- cision or ruling x x x' the right to ap- peal therefrom to the Court of Tax p... peals, Section 18 of the same ct pro- vides �that 1 .2.!1'! partv adversel�r affected bv anv ruling, order or decision of the Court of Tai Appeals av appeal there- from to the Supreme Court'. The infer- ence in Section 11 to �any person, asso- ciation or corporation~ - which, admit- ted!"~ is inadequate t9 include the Gov- ernment - when contrasted with the right to appeal , vested in Section 18 1 to 1 anr part r adverselv affected' - Which 9learlv includes the Governmel}t - stronglv suggests that the Governrrent was not meant to have the right referred to in Section llo ft This conclusion is rendered more weightv in view bf the observation made bv our upreme Court in the Ursa! case, when it said: "x x x the ourt of Tax Appeals was not created to decide mere conflicts of opinion between ad inistrative officers and agencies . Imagine an income tax ex- aminer resorting to the Court of Tax Ap- peals whenever the Collector of Internal - evenue modifie s or lowers his asse ssment on the return of a taxpavero 11 {See Ursa! VSo T Go p ,-OSo L-l 123 & 10355, ~ pril ::1 � 26, 1957; also Ursa! VSo CT 1 Go o fl oo L�l0165, U9o 30p 1957o) Therefore, the Province of Bataan and the Muni- c ipalitv of Limav~ Bataan , c annot appeal the adverse dec ision of the Board of ssessment ppeals of Bataan to this ourt because thev have no personalitv to do so .. Inasmuch as we have arrived at the conclusion that petitioners have no personalitv to appeal to thi,s Court, we find it unnecessarv to pa ss upon the other issues raisedo

" 848 - 6- fi ding tne ,,otion to dis,, ..:.s s .,er - w7 torious , the Second . mended etition for eview is hereb, ,dis:~ssed: pro ounce ent as to costs, i~ ~mila, ctober P 19W. lvil residing Judge CUR: