Talento vs Escalada

7/24/2019 Talento vs Escalada

1/7

Emerlinda S. Talento, in her capacity as the Provincial Treasurer of the Province of Bataan vs. Hon.Remigio M. Escalada, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial ourt of Bataan, Branch ! and Petronorporation", Supreme ourt, Third #ivision, $. R. %o. &'('').

Introduction

1. In the Decision dated 27 June 2008, as reiterated in the Resolution dated 8 September 2008 dismissing the1st Motion or Reconsideration !"MR#$ in the abo%e&captioned, the S' set orth the ruling that ta(pa)ers candeer pa)ments o real estate ta( b) simpl) iling 1$ an appeal *ith the +ocal oard o -ssessment -ppeals and2$ a etition or rohibition *ith the Regional /rial 'ourt and b) posting a suret) bond.

2. /his ruling has e(tremel) serious implications, not onl) to the +s o ataan, but all o%er the countr). Itpracticall) amended, through udicial legislation, the e(pressed pro%isions o the +ocal o%ernment 'ode!"+'#$ o 1331 that a ta(pa)er cannot deer and must irst pa) to the + the real estate ta( due beore an)appeal can be entertained.

4. /hus, +s *ill no longer recei%e cash pa)ments rom real estate ta( collections as the) all due but merel)suret) bonds, *hich ha%e no immediate use to +s. 5ne&hal o the proceeds o R/ accrues to the general

unds o pro%inces, cities, municipalities and baranga)s, *hile the other hal accrues to the Special 6ducationund o their +ocal School oards. ith such erroneous ruling, +s and ultimatel) the people are bound tosuer, particularl) the children rom poor amilies *ho go to public schools.

Summar) o the Rele%ant acts9

!1$ 5n 18 June 2007, etron recei%ed rom the ro%incial -ssessor:s 5ice o ataan a notice o re%isedassessment or deicienc) real propert) ta( or etron:s machineries and e;uipment in +amao,+ima), ataan in the amount o h1,741,02 due rom 133= up to the 2 nd;uarter o 2007.

!2$ 5n 17 -ugust 2007, etron iled a petition *ith the +ocal oard o -ssessment -ppeals !+--$contesting the re%ised assessment.

!4$ 5n 22 -ugust 2007, etron recei%ed rom etitioner !the ro%incial /reasurer o ataan$ a inal noticeo delin;uent real propert) ta( *ith *arning that the subect properties *ould be le%ied and auctioned shouldetron ail to settle the re%ised assessment.

!=$ etron *rote a letter to etitioner stating that in %ie* o the pendenc) o the appeal *ith the +--, an)action on the subect properties *ould be premature. etitioner replied that onl) pa)ment b) etron underprotest shall bar the collection o the ta(es due, pursuant to Sections 241 and 2


2/7

!3$ 'i%il 'ase ?o. 8801 *as iled b) etron *ith the R/' *hile its petition *ith the +-- *as still pending.Subse;uentl), the +-- dismissed etron:s petition on the ground o orum shopping.

!10$ 5n 1< 5ctober 2007, the R/' issued a /R5 or 20 da)s enoining etitioner rom proceeding *ith thepublic auction o etron:s properties.

!11$ etitioner iled an urgent motion or the immediate dissolution o the /R5 as *ell as motion to dismissetron:s petition or prohibition.

!12$ 5n < ?o%ember 2007, the R/' issued the 5rder granting etron:s petition or the issuance o the *rit opreliminar) inunction subect to etron:s posting o a h ===,3>7,


3/7

>. /he Decision *ent on to state that the R/' correctl) granted etron:s petition or issuance o a *rit opreliminar) inunction based on Section 4, Rule < is theremed) or interlocutor) orders such as the issuance o a *rit o preliminar) inunction, and the ruling inManila 6lectric 'ompan) %s. arlis !.R. ?o. 11=241, 18 Ma) 2001$ that the trial court has nourisdiction to entertain a etition or rohibition absent petitioner:s pa)ment, under protest, o the ta(assessed. /his motion *as liAe*ise denied in the said resolution dated 8 September 2008.

'omments on the Decision o the Supreme 'ourt dated 27 June 2008.

Re9 5n the inding in the Decision dated 27 June 2008 that etitioner resorted to an erroneous remed) *henshe iled a etition or 'ertiorari under Rule >


4/7

Re9 5n the inding that the etition is atall) deecti%e due to etitioner:s ailure to ile a Motion orReconsideration o the R/':s 5rder dated < ?o%ember 2007.

'5MM6?/9

1. hile it ma) be true that the general rule is that a motion or reconsideration is a condition sine ;ua

non or the iling o a petition or certiorari, such rule ne%ertheless is subect to recogniCed e(ceptions./he etition or 'ertiorari, rohibition and Mandamus iled b) etitioner speciicall) alleged that it alls*ithin such recogniCed e(ceptions to the general rule. -s such, it *as pointed out in the said etitionthat resort to the Supreme 'ourt *ithout iling o a motion or reconsideration *as dictated b)considerations o urgenc), and that the issues raised are purel) legal in nature.

2. In the case o 6ndiana 7erospace *niversity vs. ommission on Higher Education, $.R. %o.&!8!9&, cited in etitioner:s Motion or Reconsideration, the recogniCed e(ceptions to the general ruleare9 !a$ the issues raised are purel) legal in nature !b$ public interest is in%ol%ed !c$ e(treme urgenc)is ob%ious !d$ special circumstances that *arrant immediate or more direct action. /he case in%ol%esthe collection o ta(es due the local go%ernment unit in the amount o 1.7 illion esos and the *rit opreliminar) inunction has depri%ed the local go%ernment unit the right to immediatel) collect such realpropert) ta(es to the detriment o its constituents. ?ot onl) *as there urgenc) in%ol%ed, but publicinterest *as liAe*ise a principal consideration.

4. In %ie* o the oregoing reasons, the Decision should ha%e allo*ed the etition to all under thee(ception to the general rule on the re;uirement o a motion or reconsideration.

Re9 5n the inding that etitioner disregarded the rule on hierarch) o courts.

'5MM6?/9

1. /he Decision dated 27 June 2008 liAe*ise aulted etitioner or iling the etition directl) to theSupreme 'ourt instead o ha%ing the same iled *ith the 'ourt o -ppeals. -gain, such rule onhierarch) o courts is subect to certain e(ceptions. /he present etition is one such e(ception.

2. /here are compelling reasons to ile the etition directl) to the Supreme 'ourt. /he case has arreaching implications on the right o local go%ernment units to collect real propert) ta(es that it can useor public ser%ices and to inance the cost o public education. /he resolution o the issue o *hether ornot a trial court can prohibit a local go%ernment unit to collect real propert) ta(es, despite pro%isions inthe +ocal o%ernment 'ode a%oring such po*er o the local go%ernment units, *ill aect not onl) thero%ince o ataan, but all local go%ernment units in the countr) as *ell. It *ill ha%e signiicantimportance on the inances and economic %iabilit) o all local go%ernment units.

Re9 5n the inding that the R/' correctl) granted etron:s petition or issuance o a *rit o preliminar)inunction.

'5MM6?/9

1. /he Decision declared that there *as urgent and paramount necessit) or the issuance o the *rit oinunction considering that *hat is being enoined is the sale b) public auction o the properties oetron amounting to 1.7 illion esos, *hich properties are %ital to etron:s operation.

2. Bo*e%er, there is no urgent and paramount necessit) on the part o etron. 6%en assuming that theproperties are sold b) the ro%ince o ataan b) public auction, under Section 2>1 o the +ocalo%ernment 'ode, etron has the right to redeem the properties *ithin one !1$ )ear rom the date othe sale. During such one !1$ )ear period, etron shall ha%e possession o the subect properties andetron shall be entitled to the income and other ruits thereo. In light o this, etron:s operations *ill


5/7

not be immediatel) aected. -s such, there is no urgent and paramount necessit) or the issuance othe *rit o preliminar) inunction.

4. /he Decision in essence also declared that etron has a clear and unmistaAable right to reuse or holdin abe)ance the pa)ment o the ta(es. In support o this, the Decision cited the grounds relied upon b)etron in contesting the re%ised assessment. /he Decision then stated that the resolution o thegrounds raised b) etron *ould ha%e a direct bearing on the assessment made b) etitioner and thatit is necessar) that the issues must irst be passed upon beore the properties o respondent is sold atpublic auction.

=. It should be noted ho*e%er that the R/', in its 5rder dated < ?o%ember 2007, in usti)ing theissuance o the *rit o preliminar) inunction, used as basis the pro%isions o Section 2>7 o the +ocalo%ernment 'ode. Section 2>7 pro%ides that9

SEC. 267.Action Assailing Validity of

Tax Sale. - No court shall entertain any

action assailing the validity of any saleat public auction of real property or

rights therein under this Title until the

taxpayer shall have deposited with the

court the amount for which the real

property was sold together !ith

interest of t!o percent "2#$ per %onthfro% the date of sale to the ti%e of the

institution of the action. The a%ount so

deposited shall be paid to the purchaser

at the auction sale if the deed isdeclared invalid but it shall be returned

to the depositor if the action fails.

Neither shall any court declare a sale at

public auction invalid by reason ofirregularities or infor%alities in the

proceedings unless the substantiverights of the delin&uent o!ner of the

real property or the person having legal

interest therein have been i%paired.

. /he abo%e&;uoted Section 2>7 speciicall) applies to a case *here the propert) has alread) been soldat public auction due to delin;uenc) or real propert) ta(. It does not appl) in the present case *herethe propert) has not )et been sold. It *as patentl) erroneous or the R/' to use Section 2>7 as legalbasis or granting the *rit o preliminar) inunction in a%or o etron. Such act o the R/' amounts toe(cess o urisdiction as the R/' o%erstepped its la*ul authorit). /here *as liAe*ise gra%e abuse odiscretion as such patentl) erroneous use b) the R/' o Section 2>7 as basis is capricious, *himsical,arbitrar) or despotic in manner, and is in eect e;ui%alent to lacA o urisdiction.

7. /he patentl) erroneous reliance b) the R/' on Section 2>7 o the +ocal o%ernment 'ode is oneindication that there *as no clear and unmistaAable right in a%or o etron. Despite this, the Decisiondated 27 June 2008 still %alidated the *rit o preliminar) inunction granted b) the R/' to etron.


6/7

8. 5n the other hand, Sections 2


7/7

not compl) *ith this and instead maintained the +-- case *hile it iled the R/' case in %iolation othe rule against orum shopping and multiplicit) o suits based on a single cause o action.

Documents

Talento vs Escalada