Davao Oriental Electric Coop vs Prov of Davao The facts are as follows: Petitioner Davao Oriental Electric Cooperative,

Inc. was organized under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 269 which granted a number of tax and duty exem tion ri!ileges to electric coo erati!es."#$ In 1984, PD No. 19 "%$ was enacte! "# then Presi!ent $er!inan! E. %arcos. It with!rew all e&e'ptions fro' or an# preferential treat'ent in the pa#'ent of !(ties, ta&es, fees, i'posts, an! other char)es )rante! to private "(siness enterprises an!*or persons en)a)e! in an# econo'ic activit#. D(e to the fail(re of petitioner to !eclare the val(e of its properties, the Office of the Provincial +ssessor assesse! its properties."&$ On Octo"er 8, 198 , the Provincial +ssessor sent the Notice of +ssess'ent to petitioner which !(l# receive! it. D(rin) the sa'e #ear of 198 , the $iscal Incentive ,eview -oar! .$I,-/ iss(e! $I,,esol(tion No. 1018 , the %inistr# of $inance iss(e! 2ocal Ta& ,e)(lation No. 018 , an! the Office of the 2ocal 3overn'ent $inance, ,e)ion 4I, Davao Cit# iss(e! ,e)ional Office %e'oran!(' Circ(lar No. 4518 , all of which reiterate! the with!rawal of ta& e&e'ptions previo(sl# )rante! to "(siness entities incl(!in) electric cooperatives. On 6an(ar# 8, 1987, then Pres. %arcos iss(e! PD No. 5888,"6$ re9(irin) the %inister of $inance to i''e!iatel# restore the ta& e&e'ption of all electric cooperatives. :owever, in Dece'"er 1987, then Pres. Cora;on C. +9(ino issued 'xecuti!e (rder ('() No. 9# which withdrew all tax and duty exem tions granted to ri!ate entities effecti!e )arch *+, *9-.. /ut )emorandum (rder No. 6&, !ate! 6an(ar# 50, 198<, sus ended the im lementation of the said '( until 0une #+, *9-. for coo erati!es. 'ffecti!e 0uly *, *9-., 123/ No. 2%4-. restored the tax and duty exem tion ri!ileges of electric cooperatives (n!er PD No. 579. $I,- ,esol(tion No. 2%4-. reads5 -E IT ,E=O2>ED, as it is here"# resolve!, That the ta& an! !(t# e&e'ption privile)es of electric cooperatives )rante! (n!er the ter's an! con!itions of Presi!ential Decree No. 579 .creatin) the National Electrification +!'inistration as a corporation, prescri"in) its powers an! activities, appropriatin) the necessar# f(n!s therefore an! !eclarin) a national polic# o"?ective for the total electrification of the Philippines on an area covera)e "asis@ the or)ani;ation, pro'otion an! !evelop'ent of electric cooperatives to attain the sai! o"?ective, prescri"in) ter's an! con!itions for their operations, the repeal of ,ep("lic +ct No. 7808, an! for other p(rposes/, as a'en!e!, are restore! effective 6(l# 1, 198<: Provi!e!, however, That inco'e fro' their electric service operations an! other so(rces incl(!in) the interest inco'e fro' "anA !eposits an! #iel! or an# other 'onetar# "enefit fro' "anA !eposits an! #iel! or an# other si'ilar arran)e'ents shall re'ain ta&a"le: Provi!e!, f(rther, That the electric cooperatives shall f(rnish the $I,- on an ann(al "asis or as often as the $I,- 'a# re9(ire the' to !o so, statistical an! financial state'ents of their operations an! other infor'ation as 'a# "e re9(ire!, for p(rposes of effective an! efficient ta& an! !(t# e&e'ption avail'ent. .=3D./ 6+I%E >. ON3PIN =ecretar# of $inance Chair'an, $I,In %a# 1998, respon!ent file! a co'plaint for collection of !elin9(ent real propert# ta&es a)ainst petitioner for the #ears 1984 (ntil 1989, a'o(ntin) to one 'illion ei)ht h(n!re! twent#1five tho(san! nine h(n!re! twent#1ei)ht pesos an! twelve centavos .P1,85 ,958.15/. Petitioner conten!s that it was e&e'pt fro' the pa#'ent of real estate ta&es fro' 1984 to 1989 "eca(se the restoration of ta& e&e'ptions (n!er $I,- ,esol(tion No. 5418< retroacts to the !ate of with!rawal of sai! e&e'ptions. $(rther, petitioner 9(estions the classification 'a!e "#

respon!ent of so'e of its properties as real properties when it "elieves the' to "e personal properties, hence, not s("?ect to realt# ta&. On %arch 1 , 5888, the ,TC ren!ere! its !ecision in favor of petitioner. It r(le!, th(s: Inas'(ch as the $iscal Incentive ,eview -oar! .$I,-/ ,esol(tion No. 5418< iss(e! on 6(ne 14, 198<, ,E=TO,ED the !(t# an! ta& e&e'ptions en?o#e! "# Electric Cooperatives esta"lishe! p(rs(ant to PD 579 .=ec. 09/ which were previo(sl# with!rawn, an! that the sai! ,esol(tion No. 5418< was iss(e! in co'pliance with the 'an!ate of E&ec(tive Or!er No. 90 which has "een !eclare! as a vali! !ele)ation of le)islative power p(rs(ant to the %ace!a".$ case, there is no 9(estion that the herein !efen!ant as an electric cooperative esta"lishe! (n!er PD 579 is e&e'pt fro' the pa#'ent of its realt# ta&es !(rin) the perio! covere! "# the herein co'plaint B 198 to Dece'"er 01, 198<. &&& The !ispositive portion of the !ecision rea!s as follows: C:E,E$O,E, in view of the fore)oin), ?(!)'ent is ren!ere! !is'issin) the co'plaint. Co(nterclai' is liAewise !is'isse!. No prono(nce'ent as to costs. =O O,DE,ED."-$ ,espon!ent appeale! to the C+ which set asi!e the r(lin) of the ,TC. It hel! that: + c(rsor# rea!in) of the aforecite! resol(tion fails to in!icate an# se'"lance of retroactivit# of the restoration of ta& e&e'ptions, in contrast to the r(lin) of the co(rt a quo an! to the contention of the +ppellee that s(ch restoration is retroactive fro' the !ate of with!rawal of e&e'ption. The FIRB Resolution No. 24-87 is ver# specific an! clear that the ta& an! !(t# e&e'ption privile)es of electric cooperatives are restore! effective 1 6(l# 198<. -esi!es, it is settle! that laws have no retroactive effect. It is settle! that a Dso(n! stat(tor# constr(ction is that a stat(te operates prospectivel#, (nless the le)islative intent to the contrar# is 'a!e 'anifest either "# the e&press ter's of the stat(te or "# necessar# i'plication.E . . . The !ispositive portion of the !ecision of the C+ rea!s as follows: C:E,E$O,E, pre'ises consi!ere!, herein +ppeal is 3,+NTED an! the assaile! Decision of the co(rt a quo is here"# =ET +=IDE. Plaintiff1+ppellee Davao Oriental Electric Cooperative is here"# or!ere! to P+F Plaintiff1+ppellant Province of Davao Oriental !elin9(ent real propert# ta&es fro' 1 6an(ar# 198 (p to 01 Dece'"er 1989 pl(s the correspon!in) penalties an! s(rchar)es i'pose! "# law. =O O,DE,ED."9$ :ence, this appeal."*+$ Petitioner raises the followin) iss(es: .1/ C:ET:E, O, NOT T:E :ONO,+-2E COG,T O$ +PPE+2= :+D 3,+>E2F E,,ED IN ,G2IN3 T:+T T:E ,E=TO,+TION O$ T:E T+4 E4E%PTION GNDE, $I,,E=O2GTION NO. 5418< C+= NOT ,ET,O+CTI>E TO T:E D+TE O$ E$$ECTI>ITF O$ PD 19 . .5/ C:ET:E, O, NOT T:E :ONO,+-2E COG,T O$ +PPE+2= C+= CO,,ECT IN :O2DIN3 T:+T NOTCIT:=T+NDIN3 T:E ,E=TO,+TION O$ =GC: T+4 E4E%PTION= GNDE, $I,- ,E=O2GTION NO. 5418<, T:E PETITIONE, =:OG2D =TI22 -E 2I+-2E $O, GNP+ID T+4E= $O, T:E =GPPO=ED $+I2G,E TO =G-%IT TO T:E $I,- $IN+NCI+2 =T+TE%ENT= O$ IT= OPE,+TION=. .0/ CIT:OGT CONCEDIN3 ON T:E $O,E3OIN3, C:ET:E, O, NOT T:E PETITIONE, COG2D -E %+DE TO P+F T+4E= -+=ED ON + CIDE1=CEEPIN3 +ND E,,ONEOG= +==E==%ENT O$ IT= ,E+2 P,OPE,TIE=."**$ $irst, we resolve the iss(e of retroactivit# of $I,- ,esol(tion No. 5418<. Ce affir' the r(lin) of the C+. In!ee!, even a c(rsor# rea!in) of the resol(tion, 9(ote! a"ove, "ares no in!icia of retroactivit# of its application. $I,- ,esol(tion No. 5418< is cr#stal clear in statin) that Dthe ta&

an! !(t# e&e'ption privile)es of electric cooperatives )rante! (n!er the ter's an! con!itions of Presi!ential Decree No. 579 . . . are restore! effective 6(l# 1, 198<.E There is no other wa# to constr(e it. The lan)(a)e of the law is plain an! (na'"i)(o(s. Chen the lan)(a)e of the law is clear an! (ne9(ivocal, the law '(st "e taAen to 'ean e&actl# what it sa#s. $(rther, "eca(se ta&es are the life"loo! of the nation, the co(rt has alwa#s applie! the !octrine of strict interpretation in constr(in) ta& e&e'ptions. + clai' for e&e'ption fro' ta& pa#'ents '(st "e clearl# shown an! "e "ase! on lan)(a)e in the law too plain to "e 'istaAen. Elsewise state!, ta&ation is the r(le, e&e'ption therefro' is the e&ception."*2$ =econ!, we r(le on the iss(e of assess'ent of petitionerHs real properties. Petitioner contests the assess'ent "# respon!ent of its properties. It clai's that the ta& !eclarations coverin) its properties were iss(e! witho(t prior cons(ltation, an! witho(t its Anowle!)e an! consent. In a!!ition, it ar)(es that respon!ent classifie! its poles, towers an! fi&t(res, overhea! con!(ctors an! !evices, station e9(ip'ent, line transfor'ers, etc. as real properties Dwhen "# ItheirJ nat(re, (se, p(rpose, an! !estination an! "# s("stantive law an! ?(rispr(!ence, the# are personal properties.E"*#$ :owever, petitioner !oes not !en# havin) !(l# receive! the two Notices of +ssess'ent !ate! Octo"er 8, 198 on Octo"er 18, 198 ."*%$ It also a!'its that it !i! not file a protest "efore the -oar! of +ssess'ent +ppeals to 9(estion the assess'ent."*&$ =ection 08 of PD No. 474,"*6$ otherwise Anown as the KThe ,eal Propert# Ta& Co!e,K provi!es: =ec. 08. 2ocal -oar! of +ssess'ent +ppeals. L +n# owner who is not satisfie! with the action of the provincial or cit# assessor in the assess'ent of his propert# 'a#, within si&t# !a#s fro' the !ate of receipt "# hi' of the written notice of assess'ent as provi!e! in this Co!e, appeal to the -oar! of +ssess'ent +ppeals of the province or cit#, "# filin) with it a petition (n!er oath (sin) the for' prescri"e! for the p(rpose, to)ether with copies of the ta& !eclarations an! s(ch affi!avit or !oc('ents s("'itte! in s(pport of the appeal. :avin) faile! to appeal the assess'ent of its properties to the -oar! of +ssess'ent +ppeals, petitioner cannot now assail the vali!it# of the ta& assess'ent a)ainst it "efore the co(rts. Petitioner faile! to e&ha(st its a!'inistrative re'e!ies, an! the conse9(ence for s(ch fail(re is clear B the ta& assess'ent, as co'p(te! an! iss(e! "# the Office of the Provincial +ssessor, "eca'e final. Petitioner is !ee'e! to have a!'itte! the correctness of the assess'ent of its properties. In a!!ition, =ection 74 of PD No. 474 re9(ires that the ta&pa#er '(st first pa# (n!er protest the ta& assesse! a)ainst hi' "efore he co(l! seeA reco(rse fro' the co(rts to assail its vali!it#. The sai! section provi!es: =EC. 74. Restriction upon power of court to impeach tax. L No co(rt shall entertain an# s(it assailin) the vali!it# of ta& assesse! (n!er this Co!e (ntil the ta&pa#er shall have pai!, (n!er protest, the ta& assesse! a)ainst hi' nor shall an# co(rt !eclare an# ta& invali! "# reason of irre)(larities or infor'alities in the procee!in)s of the officers char)e! with the assess'ent or collection of ta&es, or of fail(re to perfor' their !(ties within this ti'e herein specifie! for their perfor'ance (nless s(ch irre)(larities, infor'alities or fail(re shall have i'paire! the s("stantial ri)hts of the ta&pa#er@ nor shall an# co(rt !eclare an# portion of the ta& assesse! (n!er the provisions of Co!e invali! e&cept (pon con!ition that the ta&pa#er shall pa# the ?(st a'o(nt of the ta&, as !eter'ine! "# the co(rt in the pen!in) procee!in). .E'phasis s(pplie!/ IN VIEW WHEREOF, petitionerHs appeal is DENIED. The Nove'"er 1 , 588 Decision of the Co(rt of +ppeals in C+13.,. C> No. 7<188 is AFFIRMED. Costs a)ainst petitioner. SO ORDERED.