FELS ENERGY, INC., Petitioner, -versusTHE PROVINCE OF BATANGAS and THE OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF BATANGAS, Respondents.

x----------------------------------------------------x NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus -

G.R. No. 168557

G.R. No. 1706 8

LOCAL BOAR! OF ASSESS"ENT APPEALS OF BATANGAS, LA#RO C. AN!AYA, $n %$& 'a(a'$)* a& )%+ A&&+&&o, o- )%+ P,o.$n'+ o- Ba)an/a&, and )%+ Promulgated0 PROVINCE OF BATANGAS ,+(,+&+n)+d 1* $)& P,o.$n'$a2 A&&+&&o,, F+1,3a,* 16, 007 Respondents. x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x !ECISION CALLE4O, SR., J.: Before us are two consolidated cases docketed as G.R. No. 168 ! and G.R. No. 1!"6#8, w$ic$ were filed %& petitioners '()* (nerg&, +nc. ,'()*- and National Power .orporation ,NP.-, respecti/el&. 0$e first is a petition for re/iew on certiorari assailing t$e 1ugust # , #""2 3ecision415 of t$e .ourt of 1ppeals ,.1- in .1-G.R. *P No. 6!26" and its Resolution 4#5 dated 7une #", #"" 8 t$e second, also a petition for re/iew on certiorari, c$allenges t$e 'e%ruar& 6, #"" 3ecision495 and No/em%er #9, #"" Resolution425 of t$e .1 in .1-G.R. *P No. 6!261. Bot$ petitions were dismissed on t$e ground of prescription. 0$e pertinent facts are as follows: ;n 7anuar& 18, 1669, NP. entered into a lease contract wit$ Polar (nerg&, +nc. o/er 9x9" <= diesel engine power %arges moored at Bala&an Ba& in .alaca,

Batangas. 0$e contract, denominated as an (nerg& .on/ersion 1greement4 5 ,1greement-, was for a period of fi/e &ears. 1rticle 1" reads:
1".1 RESPONSIBILITY. NAPOCOR s$all %e responsi%le for t$e pa&ment of ,a- all taxes, import duties, fees, c$arges and ot$er le/ies imposed %& t$e National Go/ernment of t$e Repu%lic of t$e P$ilippines or an& agenc& or instrumentalit& t$ereof to w$ic$ POLAR ma& %e or %ecome su%>ect to or in relation to t$e performance of t$eir o%ligations under t$is agreement ,ot$er t$an ,i- taxes imposed or calculated on t$e %asis of t$e net income of POLAR and Personal +ncome 0axes of its emplo&ees and ,ii- construction permit fees, en/ironmental permit fees and ot$er similar fees and c$arges- and ,%- all real estate taxes and assessments, rates and ot$er c$arges in respect of t$e Power Barges.465

*u%se?uentl&, Polar (nerg&, +nc. assigned its rig$ts under t$e 1greement to '()*. 0$e NP. initiall& opposed t$e assignment of rig$ts, citing paragrap$ 1!.# of 1rticle 1! of t$e 1greement. ;n 1ugust !, 166 , '()* recei/ed an assessment of real propert& taxes on t$e power %arges from Pro/incial 1ssessor )auro .. 1nda&a of Batangas .it&. 0$e assessed tax, w$ic$ likewise co/ered t$ose due for 1662, amounted to P 6,182,"88.2" per annum. '()* referred t$e matter to NP., reminding it of its o%ligation under t$e 1greement to pa& all real estate taxes. +t t$en ga/e NP. t$e full power and aut$orit& to represent it in an& conference regarding t$e real propert& assessment of t$e Pro/incial 1ssessor. +n a letter4!5 dated *eptem%er !, 166 , NP. soug$t reconsideration of t$e Pro/incial 1ssessor@s decision to assess real propert& taxes on t$e power %arges. Aowe/er, t$e motion was denied on *eptem%er ##, 166 , and t$e Pro/incial 1ssessor ad/ised NP. to pa& t$e assessment. 485 0$is prompted NP. to file a petition wit$ t$e )ocal Board of 1ssessment 1ppeals ,)B11- for t$e setting aside of t$e assessment and t$e declaration of t$e %arges as non-taxa%le items8 it also pra&ed t$at s$ould )B11 find t$e %arges to %e taxa%le, t$e Pro/incial 1ssessor %e directed to make t$e necessar& corrections.465 +n its 1nswer to t$e petition, t$e Pro/incial 1ssessor a/erred t$at t$e %arges were real propert& for purposes of taxation under *ection 166,c- of Repu%lic 1ct ,R.1.- No. !16". Before t$e case was decided %& t$e )B11, NP. filed a <anifestation, informing t$e )B11 t$at t$e 3epartment of 'inance ,3;'- $ad rendered an

opinion41"5 dated <a& #", 1666, w$ere it is clearl& stated t$at power %arges are not real propert& su%>ect to real propert& assessment. ;n 1ugust #6, 1666, t$e )B11 rendered a Resolution 4115 den&ing t$e petition. 0$e fallo reads:
=A(R(';R(, t$e Petition is 3(N+(3. '()* is $ere%& ordered to pa& t$e real estate tax in t$e amount of P 6,182,"88.2", for t$e &ear 1662. *; ;R3(R(3.41#5

0$e )B11 ruled t$at t$e power plant facilities, w$ile t$e& ma& %e classified as mo/a%le or personal propert&, are ne/ert$eless considered real propert& for taxation purposes %ecause t$e& are installed at a specific location wit$ a c$aracter of permanenc&. 0$e )B11 also pointed out t$at t$e owner of t$e %argesB'()*, a pri/ate corporationBis t$e one %eing taxed, not NP.. 1 mere agreement making NP. responsi%le for t$e pa&ment of all real estate taxes and assessments will not >ustif& t$e exemption of '()*8 suc$ a pri/ilege can onl& %e granted to NP. and cannot %e extended to '()*. 'inall&, t$e )B11 also ruled t$at t$e petition was filed out of time. 1ggrie/ed, '()* appealed t$e )B11@s ruling to t$e .entral Board of 1ssessment 1ppeals ,.B11-. ;n 1ugust #8, 1666, t$e Pro/incial 0reasurer of Batangas .it& issued a Notice of )e/& and =arrant %& 3istraint4195 o/er t$e power %arges, seeking to collect real propert& taxes amounting to P#9#,6"#,1# .61 as of 7ul& 91, 1666. 0$e notice and warrant was officiall& ser/ed to '()* on No/em%er 8, 1666. +t t$en filed a <otion to )ift )e/& dated No/em%er 12, 1666, pra&ing t$at t$e Pro/incial 1ssessor %e furt$er restrained %& t$e .B11 from enforcing t$e disputed assessment during t$e pendenc& of t$e appeal. ;n No/em%er 1 , 1666, t$e .B11 issued an ;rder4125 lifting t$e le/& and distraint on t$e properties of '()* in order not to preempt and render ineffectual, nugator& and illusor& an& resolution or >udgment w$ic$ t$e Board would issue. <eantime, t$e NP. filed a <otion for +nter/ention41 5 dated 1ugust !, 1668 in t$e proceedings %efore t$e .B11. 0$is was appro/ed %& t$e .B11 in an ;rder4165 dated *eptem%er ##, 1668.

3uring t$e pendenc& of t$e case, %ot$ '()* and NP. filed se/eral motions to admit %ond to guarantee t$e pa&ment of real propert& taxes assessed %& t$e Pro/incial 1ssessor ,in t$e e/ent t$at t$e >udgment %e unfa/ora%le to t$em-. 0$e %onds were dul& appro/ed %& t$e .B11. ;n 1pril 6, #""", t$e .B11 rendered a 3ecision 41!5 finding t$e power %arges exempt from real propert& tax. 0$e dispositi/e portion reads:
=A(R(';R(, t$e Resolution of t$e )ocal Board of 1ssessment 1ppeals of t$e Pro/ince of Batangas is $ere%& re/ersed. Respondent-appellee Pro/incial 1ssessor of t$e Pro/ince of Batangas is $ere%& ordered to drop su%>ect propert& under 1RPC0ax 3eclaration No. "18-""6 8 from t$e )ist of 0axa%le Properties in t$e 1ssessment Roll. 0$e Pro/incial 0reasurer of Batangas is $ere%& directed to act accordingl&. *; ;R3(R(3.4185

Ruling in fa/or of '()* and NP., t$e .B11 reasoned t$at t$e power %arges %elong to NP.8 since t$e& are actuall&, directl& and exclusi/el& used %& it, t$e power %arges are co/ered %& t$e exemptions under *ection #92,c- of R.1. No. !16".4165 1s to t$e ot$er >urisdictional issue, t$e .B11 ruled t$at prescription did not preclude t$e NP. from pursuing its claim for tax exemption in accordance wit$ *ection #"6 of R.1. No. !16". 0$e Pro/incial 1ssessor filed a motion for reconsideration, w$ic$ was opposed %& '()* and NP.. +n a complete volte face, t$e .B11 issued a Resolution4#"5 on 7ul& 91, #""1 re/ersing its earlier decision. 0$e fallo of t$e resolution reads:
=A(R(';R(, premises considered, it is t$e resolution of t$is Board t$at: ,a,%,c,d0$e decision of t$e Board dated 6 1pril #""" is $ere%& re/ersed. 0$e petition of '()*, as well as t$e inter/ention of NP., is dismissed. 0$e resolution of t$e )ocal Board of 1ssessment 1ppeals of Batangas is $ere%& affirmed, 0$e real propert& tax assessment on '()* %& t$e Pro/incial 1ssessor of Batangas is likewise $ere%& affirmed. *; ;R3(R(3.4#15

'()* and NP. filed separate motions for reconsideration, w$ic$ were timel& opposed %& t$e Pro/incial 1ssessor. 0$e .B11 denied t$e said motions in a Resolution4##5 dated ;cto%er 16, #""1. 3issatisfied, '()* filed a petition for re/iew %efore t$e .1 docketed as .1-G.R. *P No. 6!26". <eanw$ile, NP. filed a separate petition, docketed as .1-G.R. *P No. 6!261. ;n 7anuar& 1!, #""#, NP. filed a <anifestationC<otion for .onsolidation in .1-G.R. *P No. 6!26" pra&ing for t$e consolidation of its petition wit$ .1G.R. *P No. 6!261. +n a Resolution4#95 dated 'e%ruar& 1#, #""#, t$e appellate court directed NP. to re-file its motion for consolidation wit$ .1-G.R. *P No. 6!261, since it is t$e ponente of t$e latter petition w$o s$ould resol/e t$e re?uest for reconsideration. NP. failed to compl& wit$ t$e aforesaid resolution. ;n 1ugust # , #""2, t$e 0welft$ 3i/ision of t$e appellate court rendered >udgment in .1-G.R. *P No. 6!26" den&ing t$e petition on t$e ground of prescription. 0$e decretal portion of t$e decision reads:
WHEREFORE, t$e petition for re/iew is DENIED for lack of merit and t$e assailed Resolutions dated 7ul& 91, #""1 and ;cto%er 16, #""1 of t$e .entral Board of 1ssessment 1ppeals are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.4#25

;n *eptem%er #", #""2, '()* timel& filed a motion for reconsideration seeking t$e re/ersal of t$e appellate court@s decision in .1-G.R. *P No. 6!26". 0$ereafter, NP. filed a petition for re/iew dated ;cto%er 16, #""2 %efore t$is .ourt, docketed as G.R. No. 16 119, assailing t$e appellate court@s decision in .1-G.R. *P No. 6!26". 0$e petition was, $owe/er, denied in t$is .ourt@s Resolution4# 5 of No/em%er 8, #""2, for NP.@s failure to sufficientl& s$ow t$at t$e .1 committed an& re/ersi%le error in t$e c$allenged decision. NP. filed a motion for reconsideration, w$ic$ t$e .ourt denied wit$ finalit& in a Resolution4#65 dated 7anuar& 16, #"" . <eantime, t$e appellate court dismissed t$e petition in .1-G.R. *P No. 6!261. +t $eld t$at t$e rig$t to ?uestion t$e assessment of t$e Pro/incial 1ssessor $ad alread& prescri%ed upon t$e failure of '()* to appeal t$e disputed assessment to t$e )B11 wit$in t$e period prescri%ed %& law. *ince '()* $ad lost t$e rig$t to

?uestion t$e assessment, t$e rig$t of t$e Pro/incial Go/ernment to collect t$e tax was alread& a%solute. NP. filed a motion for reconsideration dated <arc$ 8, #"" , seeking reconsideration of t$e 'e%ruar& , #"" ruling of t$e .1 in .1-G.R. *P No. 6!261. 0$e motion was denied in a Resolution4#!5 dated No/em%er #9, #"" . 0$e motion for reconsideration filed %& '()* in .1-G.R. *P No. 6!26" $ad %een earlier denied for lack of merit in a Resolution4#85 dated 7une #", #"" . ;n 1ugust 9, #"" , '()* filed t$e petition docketed as G.R. No. 168 %efore t$is .ourt, raising t$e following issues:
1. =$et$er power %arges, w$ic$ are floating and mo/a%le, are personal properties and t$erefore, not su%>ect to real propert& tax. B. 1ssuming t$at t$e su%>ect power %arges are real properties, w$et$er t$e& are exempt from real estate tax under *ection #92 of t$e )ocal Go/ernment .ode ,D)G.E-. .. 1ssuming arguendo t$at t$e su%>ect power %arges are su%>ect to real estate tax, w$et$er or not it s$ould %e NP. w$ic$ s$ould %e made to pa& t$e same under t$e law. 3. 1ssuming arguendo t$at t$e su%>ect power %arges are real properties, w$et$er or not t$e same is su%>ect to depreciation >ust like an& ot$er personal properties. (. =$et$er t$e rig$t of t$e petitioner to ?uestion t$e patentl& null and /oid real propert& tax assessment on t$e petitioner@s personal properties is imprescripti%le.
4#65

;n 7anuar& 19, #""6, NP. filed its own petition for re/iew %efore t$is .ourt ,G.R. No. 1!"6#8-, indicating t$e following errors committed %& t$e .1:
+ 0A( .;FR0 ;' 1PP(1)* GR1G()H (RR(3 +N A;)3+NG 0A10 0A( 1PP(1) 0; 0A( )B11 =1* '+)(3 ;F0 ;' 0+<(. ++ 0A( .;FR0 ;' 1PP(1)* GR1G()H (RR(3 +N N;0 A;)3+NG 0A10 0A( P;=(R B1RG(* 1R( N;0 *FB7(.0 0; R(1) PR;P(R0H 01I(*.

+++ 0A( .;FR0 ;' 1PP(1)* GR1G()H (RR(3 +N N;0 A;)3+NG 0A10 0A( 1**(**<(N0 ;N 0A( P;=(R B1RG(* =1* N;0 <13( +N 1..;R31N.( =+0A )1=.49"5

.onsidering t$at t$e factual antecedents of %ot$ cases are similar, t$e .ourt ordered t$e consolidation of t$e two cases in a Resolution4915 dated <arc$ 8, #""6. +n an earlier Resolution dated 'e%ruar& 1, #""6, t$e .ourt $ad re?uired t$e parties to su%mit t$eir respecti/e <emoranda wit$in 9" da&s from notice. 1lmost a &ear passed %ut t$e parties $ad not su%mitted t$eir respecti/e memoranda. .onsidering t$at taxesJt$e life%lood of our econom&Jare in/ol/ed in t$e present contro/ers&, t$e .ourt was prompted to dispense wit$ t$e said pleadings, wit$ t$e end /iew of ad/ancing t$e interests of >ustice and a/oiding furt$er dela&. +n %ot$ petitions, '()* and NP. maintain t$at t$e appeal %efore t$e )B11 was not time-%arred. '()* argues t$at w$en NP. mo/ed to $a/e t$e assessment reconsidered on *eptem%er !, 166 , t$e running of t$e period to file an appeal wit$ t$e )B11 was tolled. 'or its part, NP. posits t$at t$e 6"-da& period for appealing to t$e )B11 s$ould %e reckoned from its receipt of t$e denial of its motion for reconsideration. Petitioners@ contentions are %ereft of merit. *ection ##6 of R.1. No. !16", ot$erwise known as t$e )ocal Go/ernment .ode of 1661, pro/ides:
SECTION 6. Local Board of Assessment Appeals. B 1n& owner or person $a/ing legal interest in t$e propert& w$o is not satisfied wit$ t$e action of t$e pro/incial, cit& or municipal assessor in t$e assessment of $is propert& ma&, wit$in sixt& ,6"- da&s from t$e date of receipt of t$e written notice of assessment, appeal to t$e Board of 1ssessment 1ppeals of t$e pro/ince or cit& %& filing a petition under oat$ in t$e form prescri%ed for t$e purpose, toget$er wit$ copies of t$e tax declarations and suc$ affida/its or documents su%mitted in support of t$e appeal.

=e note t$at t$e notice of assessment w$ic$ t$e Pro/incial 1ssessor sent to '()* on 1ugust !, 166 , contained t$e following statement:
+f &ou are not satisfied wit$ t$is assessment, &ou ma&, within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt hereof, appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals of t$e pro/ince %& filing a petition under oat$ on t$e form prescri%ed for

t$e purpose, toget$er wit$ copies of 1RPC0ax 3eclaration and suc$ affida/its or documents su%mitted in support of t$e appeal.49#5

+nstead of appealing to t$e Board of 1ssessment 1ppeals ,as stated in t$e notice-, NP. opted to file a motion for reconsideration of t$e Pro/incial 1ssessor@s decision, a remed& not sanctioned %& law. 0$e remed& of appeal to t$e )B11 is a/aila%le from an ad/erse ruling or action of t$e pro/incial, cit& or municipal assessor in t$e assessment of t$e propert&. +t follows t$en t$at t$e determination made %& t$e respondent Pro/incial 1ssessor wit$ regard to t$e taxa%ilit& of t$e su%>ect real properties falls wit$in its power to assess properties for taxation purposes su%>ect to appeal %efore t$e )B11.4995 =e full& agree wit$ t$e rationaliKation of t$e .1 in %ot$ .1-G.R. *P No. 6!26" and .1-G.R. *P No. 6!261. 0$e two di/isions of t$e appellate court cited t$e case of Callanta v. ffice of the m!udsman,4925 w$ere we ruled t$at under *ection ##6 of R.1. No !16",49 5 t$e last action of t$e local assessor on a particular assessment s$all %e t$e notice of assessment8 it is t$is last action w$ic$ gi/es t$e owner of t$e propert& t$e rig$t to appeal to t$e )B11. 0$e procedure likewise does not permit t$e propert& owner t$e remed& of filing a motion for reconsideration %efore t$e local assessor. 0$e pertinent $olding of t$e .ourt in Callanta is as follows:
x x x 405$e same .ode is e?uall& clear t$at t$e aggrie/ed owners s$ould $a/e %roug$t t$eir appeals %efore t$e )B11. Fnfortunatel&, despite t$e ad/ice to t$is effect contained in t$eir respecti/e notices of assessment, t$e owners c$ose to %ring t$eir re?uests for a re/iewCread>ustment %efore t$e cit& assessor, a remed& not sanctioned %& t$e law. 0o allow t$is procedure would indeed in/ite corruption in t$e s&stem of appraisal and assessment. +t con/enientl& courts a graft-prone situation w$ere /alues of real propert& ma& %e initiall& set unreasona%l& $ig$, and t$en su%se?uentl& reduced upon t$e re?uest of a propert& owner. +n t$e latter instance, allusions of a possi%le co/ert, illicit trade-off cannot %e a/oided, and in fact can con/enientl& take place. *uc$ occasion for misc$ief must %e pre/ented and excised from our s&stem.4965

'or its part, t$e appellate court declared in .1-G.R. *P No. 6!261:
x x x. 0$e .ourt announces: "enceforth, whenever the local assessor sends a notice to the owner or lawful possessor of real property of its revised assessed value, the former shall no lon#er have any $urisdiction to entertain any re%uest for a review or read$ustment. &he appropriate forum where the a##rieved party may !rin# his appeal is the 'BAA as provided !y law. +t follows

inelucta%l& t$at t$e 6"-da& period for making t$e appeal to t$e )B11 runs wit$out interruption. 0$is is w$at =e $eld in *P 6!26" and reaffirm toda& in *P 6!261.49!5

0o reiterate, if t$e taxpa&er fails to appeal in due course, t$e rig$t of t$e local go/ernment to collect t$e taxes due wit$ respect to t$e taxpa&er@s propert& %ecomes a%solute upon t$e expiration of t$e period to appeal. 4985 +t also %ears stressing t$at t$e taxpa&er@s failure to ?uestion t$e assessment in t$e )B11 renders t$e assessment of t$e local assessor final, executor& and demanda%le, t$us, precluding t$e taxpa&er from ?uestioning t$e correctness of t$e assessment, or from in/oking an& defense t$at would reopen t$e ?uestion of its lia%ilit& on t$e merits.4965 +n fine, t$e )B11 acted correctl& w$en it dismissed t$e petitioners@ appeal for $a/ing %een filed out of time8 t$e .B11 and t$e appellate court were likewise correct in affirming t$e dismissal. (lementar& is t$e rule t$at t$e perfection of an appeal wit$in t$e period t$erefor is %ot$ mandator& and >urisdictional, and failure in t$is regard renders t$e decision final and executor&.42"5 +n t$e .omment filed %& t$e Pro/incial 1ssessor, it is asserted t$at t$e instant petition is %arred %& res $udicata8 t$at t$e final and executor& >udgment in G.R. No. 16 119 ,w$ere t$ere was a final determination on t$e issue of prescription-, effecti/el& precludes t$e claims $erein8 and t$at t$e filing of t$e instant petition after an ad/erse >udgment in G.R. No. 16 119 constitutes forum s$opping. '()* maintains t$at t$e argument of t$e Pro/incial 1ssessor is completel& misplaced since it was not a part& to t$e erroneous petition w$ic$ t$e NP. filed in G.R. No. 16 119. +t a/ers t$at it did not participate in t$e aforesaid proceeding, and t$e *upreme .ourt ne/er ac?uired >urisdiction o/er it. 1s to t$e issue of forum s$opping, petitioner claims t$at no forum s$opping could $a/e %een committed since t$e elements of litis pendentia or res $udicata are not present. =e do not agree. (es $udicata per/ades e/er& organiKed s&stem of >urisprudence and is founded upon two grounds em%odied in /arious maxims of common law, namel&: ,1- pu%lic polic& and necessit&, w$ic$ makes it to t$e interest of t$e *tate t$at t$ere s$ould %e an end to litigation B repu!licae ut sit litium8 and ,#- t$e $ards$ip on t$e indi/idual of %eing /exed twice for t$e same cause B nemo de!et

!is vexari et eadem causa. 1 conflicting doctrine would su%>ect t$e pu%lic peace and ?uiet to t$e will and dereliction of indi/iduals and prefer t$e regalement of t$e litigious disposition on t$e part of suitors to t$e preser/ation of t$e pu%lic tran?uilit& and $appiness.4215 1s we ruled in "eirs of &rinidad )e 'eon *da. de (oxas v. Court of Appeals:42#5
x x x 1n existing final >udgment or decree B rendered upon t$e merits, wit$out fraud or collusion, %& a court of competent >urisdiction acting upon a matter wit$in its aut$orit& B is conclusi/e on t$e rig$ts of t$e parties and t$eir pri/ies. 0$is ruling $olds in all ot$er actions or suits, in t$e same or an& ot$er >udicial tri%unal of concurrent >urisdiction, touc$ing on t$e points or matters in issue in t$e first suit. xxx .ourts will simpl& refuse to reopen w$at $as %een decided. 0$e& will not allow t$e same parties or t$eir pri/ies to litigate anew a ?uestion once it $as %een considered and decided wit$ finalit&. )itigations must end and terminate sometime and somew$ere. 0$e effecti/e and efficient administration of >ustice re?uires t$at once a >udgment $as %ecome final, t$e pre/ailing part& s$ould not %e depri/ed of t$e fruits of t$e /erdict %& su%se?uent suits on t$e same issues filed %& t$e same parties. 0$is is in accordance wit$ t$e doctrine of res $udicata w$ic$ $as t$e following elements: ,1- t$e former >udgment must %e final8 ,#- t$e court w$ic$ rendered it $ad >urisdiction o/er t$e su%>ect matter and t$e parties8 ,9- t$e >udgment must %e on t$e merits8 and ,2- t$ere must %e %etween t$e first and t$e second actions, identit& of parties, su%>ect matter and causes of action. T%+ a((2$'a)$on o- )%+ do'),$n+ o- res !d"cata do+& no) ,+53$,+ a1&o23)+ $d+n)$)* o- (a,)$+& 13) 6+,+2* &31&)an)$a2 $d+n)$)* o- (a,)$+&. T%+,+ $& &31&)an)$a2 $d+n)$)* o- (a,)$+& 7%+n )%+,+ $& 'o663n$)* o- $n)+,+&) o, (,$.$)* o- $n)+,+&) 1+)7++n a (a,)* $n )%+ -$,&) and a (a,)* $n )%+ &+'ond 'a&+ +.+n $- )%+ -$,&) 'a&+ d$d no) $6(2+ad )%+ 2a))+,.4295

0o recall, '()* ga/e NP. t$e full power and aut$orit& to represent it in any proceedin# re#ardin# real property assessment. 0$erefore, w$en petitioner NP. filed its petition for re/iew docketed as G.R. No. 16 119, it did so not onl& on its %e$alf %ut also on %e$alf of '()*. <oreo/er, t$e assailed decision in t$e earlier petition for re/iew filed in t$is .ourt was t$e decision of t$e appellate court in .1-G.R. *P No. 6!26", in w$ic$ '()* was t$e petitioner. 0$us, t$e decision in G.R. No. 16 116 is %inding on petitioner '()* under t$e principle of pri/it& of interest. +n fine, '()* and NP. are su%stantiall& Didentical partiesE as to warrant t$e application of res $udicata. '()*@s argument t$at it is not %ound %& t$e erroneous petition filed %& NP. is t$us una/ailing.

;n t$e issue of forum s$opping, we rule for t$e Pro/incial 1ssessor. 'orum s$opping exists w$en, as a result of an ad/erse >udgment in one forum, a part& seeks anot$er and possi%l& fa/ora%le >udgment in anot$er forum ot$er t$an %& appeal or special ci/il action or certiorari. 0$ere is also forum s$opping w$en a part& institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on t$e same cause, on t$e gam%le t$at one or t$e ot$er court would make a fa/ora%le disposition.4225 Petitioner '()* alleges t$at t$ere is no forum s$opping since t$e elements of res $udicata are not present in t$e cases at %ar8 $owe/er, as alread& discussed, res $udicata ma& %e properl& applied $erein. Petitioners engaged in forum s$opping w$en t$e& filed G.R. Nos. 168 ! and 1!"6#8 after t$e petition for re/iew in G.R. No. 16 116. +ndeed, petitioners went from one court to anot$er tr&ing to get a fa/ora%le decision from one of t$e tri%unals w$ic$ allowed t$em to pursue t$eir cases. +t must %e stressed t$at an important factor in determining t$e existence of forum s$opping is t$e /exation caused to t$e courts and t$e parties-litigants %& t$e filing of similar cases to claim su%stantiall& t$e same reliefs. 42 5 0$e rationale against forum s$opping is t$at a part& s$ould not %e allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different fora. 'iling multiple petitions or complaints constitutes a%use of court processes, w$ic$ tends to degrade t$e administration of >ustice, wreaks $a/oc upon orderl& >udicial procedure, and adds to t$e congestion of t$e $ea/il& %urdened dockets of t$e courts.4265 0$us, t$ere is forum s$opping w$en t$ere exist: ,a- identit& of parties, or at least suc$ parties as represent t$e same interests in %ot$ actions, ,%- identit& of rig$ts asserted and relief pra&ed for, t$e relief %eing founded on t$e same facts, and ,c- t$e identit& of t$e two preceding particulars is suc$ t$at an& >udgment rendered in t$e pending case, regardless of w$ic$ part& is successful, would amount to res $udicata in t$e ot$er.42!5 Aa/ing found t$at t$e elements of res $udicata and forum s$opping are present in t$e consolidated cases, a discussion of t$e ot$er issues is no longer necessar&. Ne/ert$eless, for t$e peace and contentment of petitioners, we s$all s$ed lig$t on t$e merits of t$e case. 1s found %& t$e appellate court, t$e .B11 and )B11 power %arges are real propert& and are t$us su%>ect to real propert& tax. 0$is is also t$e ine/ita%le conclusion, considering t$at G.R. No. 16 119 was dismissed for failure to sufficientl& s$ow an& re/ersi%le error. 0ax assessments %& tax examiners are

presumed correct and made in good fait$, wit$ t$e taxpa&er $a/ing t$e %urden of pro/ing ot$erwise.4285 Besides, factual findings of administrati/e %odies, w$ic$ $a/e ac?uired expertise in t$eir field, are generall& %inding and conclusi/e upon t$e .ourt8 we will not assume to interfere wit$ t$e sensi%le exercise of t$e >udgment of men especiall& trained in appraising propert&. =$ere t$e >udicial mind is left in dou%t, it is a sound polic& to lea/e t$e assessment undistur%ed. 4265 =e find no reason to depart from t$is rule in t$is case. +n Consolidated +dison Company of ,ew -or., /nc., et al. v. &he City of ,ew -or., et al.,4 "5 a power compan& %roug$t an action to re/iew propert& tax assessment. ;n t$e cit&@s motion to dismiss, t$e *upreme .ourt of New Hork $eld t$at t$e %arges on w$ic$ were mounted gas tur%ine power plants designated to generate electrical power, t$e fuel oil %arges w$ic$ supplied fuel oil to t$e power plant %arges, and t$e accessor& e?uipment mounted on t$e %arges were su%>ect to real propert& taxation. <oreo/er, 1rticle 21 ,6- of t$e New .i/il .ode pro/ides t$at D4d5ocks and structures w$ic$, t$oug$ floating, are intended %& t$eir nature and o%>ect to remain at a fixed place on a ri/er, lake, or coastE are considered immo/a%le propert&. 0$us, power %arges are categoriKed as immova!le property !y destination, %eing in t$e nature of mac$iner& and ot$er implements intended %& t$e owner for an industr& or work w$ic$ ma& %e carried on in a %uilding or on a piece of land and w$ic$ tend directl& to meet t$e needs of said industr& or work.4 15 Petitioners maintain ne/ert$eless t$at t$e power %arges are exempt from real estate tax under *ection #92 ,c- of R.1. No. !16" %ecause t$e& are actuall&, directl& and exclusi/el& used %& petitioner NP., a go/ernment- owned and controlled corporation engaged in t$e suppl&, generation, and transmission of electric power. =e affirm t$e findings of t$e )B11 and .B11 t$at t$e owner of t$e taxa%le properties is petitioner '()*, w$ic$ in fine, is t$e entit& %eing taxed %& t$e local go/ernment. 1s stipulated under *ection #.11, 1rticle # of t$e 1greement:
OWNERSHIP OF POWER BARGES. P;)1R s$all own t$e Power Barges and all t$e fixtures, fittings, mac$iner& and e?uipment on t$e *ite used in connection wit$ t$e Power Barges w$ic$ $a/e %een supplied %& it at its own cost. P;)1R s$all operate, manage and maintain t$e Power Barges for t$e purpose of con/erting 'uel of N1P;.;R into electricit&. 4 #5

+t follows t$en t$at '()* cannot escape lia%ilit& from t$e pa&ment of realt& taxes %& in/oking its exemption in *ection #92 ,c- of R.1. No. !16", w$ic$ reads:
*(.0+;N #92. E#empt"ons from Real $ropert% &a#. B 0$e following are exempted from pa&ment of t$e real propert& tax: xxx ,c1ll mac$ineries and e?uipment t$at are actuall&, directl& and exclusi/el& used %& local water districts and go/ernment-owned or controlled corporations engaged in t$e suppl& and distri%ution of water andCor generation and transmission of electric power8 xxx

+ndeed, t$e law states t$at t$e mac$iner& must %e actuall&, directl& and exclusi/el& used %& t$e go/ernment owned or controlled corporation8 ne/ert$eless, petitioner '()* still cannot find solace in t$is pro/ision %ecause *ection . , 1rticle of t$e 1greement pro/ides:
OPERATION. P;)1R undertakes t$at until t$e end of t$e )ease Period, su%>ect to t$e suppl& of t$e necessar& 'uel pursuant to 1rticle 6 and to t$e ot$er pro/isions $ereof, $) 7$22 o(+,a)+ )%+ Po7+, Ba,/+& to con/ert suc$ 'uel into electricit& in accordance wit$ Part 1 of 1rticle !.4 95

+t is a %asic rule t$at o%ligations arising from a contract $a/e t$e force of law %etween t$e parties. Not %eing contrar& to law, morals, good customs, pu%lic order or pu%lic polic&, t$e parties to t$e contract are %ound %& its terms and conditions.4 25 0ime and again, t$e *upreme .ourt $as stated t$at taxation is t$e rule and exemption is t$e exception.4 5 0$e law does not look wit$ fa/or on tax exemptions and t$e entit& t$at would seek to %e t$us pri/ileged must >ustif& it %& words too plain to %e mistaken and too categorical to %e misinterpreted. 4 65 0$us, appl&ing t$e rule of strict construction of laws granting tax exemptions, and t$e rule t$at dou%ts s$ould %e resol/ed in fa/or of pro/incial corporations, we $old t$at '()* is considered a taxa%le entit&. 0$e mere undertaking of petitioner NP. under *ection 1".1 of t$e 1greement, t$at it s$all %e responsi%le for t$e pa&ment of all real estate taxes and assessments, does not >ustif& t$e exemption. 0$e pri/ilege granted to petitioner NP. cannot %e extended to '()*. 0$e co/enant is %etween '()* and NP. and

does not %ind a t$ird t$e Pro/ince of Batangas.

person

not

pri/&

t$ereto,

in

t$is

case,

+t must %e pointed out t$at t$e protracted and circuitous litigation $as seriousl& resulted in t$e local go/ernment@s depri/ation of re/enues. 0$e power to tax is an incident of so/ereignt& and is unlimited in its magnitude, acknowledging in its /er& nature no perimeter so t$at securit& against its a%use is to %e found onl& in t$e responsi%ilit& of t$e legislature w$ic$ imposes t$e tax on t$e constituenc& w$o are to pa& for it.4 !5 0$e rig$t of local go/ernment units to collect taxes due must alwa&s %e up$eld to a/oid se/ere tax erosion. 0$is consideration is consistent wit$ t$e *tate polic& to guarantee t$e autonom& of local go/ernments 4 85 and t$e o%>ecti/e of t$e )ocal Go/ernment .ode t$at t$e& en>o& genuine and meaningful local autonom& to empower t$em to ac$ie/e t$eir fullest de/elopment as selfreliant communities and make t$em effecti/e partners in t$e attainment of national goals.4 65 +n conclusion, we reiterate t$at t$e power to tax is t$e most potent instrument to raise t$e needed re/enues to finance and support m&riad acti/ities of t$e local go/ernment units for t$e deli/er& of %asic ser/ices essential to t$e promotion of t$e general welfare and t$e en$ancement of peace, progress, and prosperit& of t$e people.46"5 WHEREFORE, t$e Petitions are !ENIE! and t$e assailed 3ecisions and Resolutions AFFIR"E!. SO OR!ERE!. RO"EO 4. CALLE4O, SR. A&&o'$a)+ 43&)$'+
415

Penned %& 1ssociate 7ustice <arina ). BuKon, wit$ 1ssociate 7ustices <ario ). GuariLa +++ and *antiago 7a/ier Ranada ,retired-, concurring8 rollo ,G.R. No. 168 !-, pp. 1"9-116. 4#5 Penned %& 1ssociate 7ustice <arina ). BuKon, wit$ 1ssociate 7ustices <ario ). GuariLa +++ and *antiago 7a/ier Ranada8 concurring8 id. at 118-1#". 495 Penned %& 1ssociate 7ustice <ario ). GuariLa +++, wit$ 1ssociate 7ustices <arina ). BuKon and *antiago 7a/ier Ranada8 concurring8 rollo ,G.R. No. 1!"6#8-, pp. 6-62. 425 Penned %& 1ssociate 7ustice <ario ). GuariLa +++, wit$ 1ssociate 7ustices <arina ). BuKon and *antiago 7a/ier Ranada8 concurring8 id. at 6 . 4 5 (ollo ,G.R. No. 168 !-, pp. 1#1-#2 . 465 +d. at 1 . 4!5 +d. at #26-# ". 485 +d. at # 9-# . 465 (ollo ,G.R. No. 168 !-, pp. # 6-#6!. 41"5 +d. at #86-#88. 4115 +d. at #86-#62. 41#5 +d. at #62. 4195 (ollo ,G.R. No. 1!"6#8-, pp. 1##-1#2. 4125 +d. at 1#6.

41 5 4165 41!5

(ollo ,G.R. No. 168 !-, pp. 962-966. +d. at 9!"-9!#. +d. at 989-962. 4185 +d. at 962. 4165 ;t$erwise known as t$e D)ocal Go/ernment .ode of 1661.E 4#"5 (ollo ,G.R. No. 168 !-, pp. 2# -291. 4#15 +d. at 29"-291. 4##5 +d. at 2!8. 4#95 .1 (ollo ,.1-G.R. *P No. 6!26"-, p. 2##. 4#25 (ollo ,G.R. No. 168 !-, pp. 26- ". 4# 5 +d. at 6" . 4#65 +d. at 6"6. 4#!5 (ollo ,G.R. No. 1!"6#8-, p. 6 . 4#85 (ollo ,G.R. No. 168 !-, pp. #9-# . 4#65 +d. at 61. 49"5 (ollo ,G.R. No. 1!"6#8-, pp. 18-16. 4915 (ollo ,G.R. No. 168 !-, p. 69!. 49#5 +d. at #26 ,+talics supplied-. 4995 0ystems 1lus Computer Colle#e of Caloocan City v. 'ocal 2overnment of Caloocan City, 2 P$il. 6 6, 66#-669 ,#""9-. 4925 G.R. Nos. 11 # 9-!2, 7anuar& 9", 1668, #8 *.R1 628. 49 5 'ormerl& *ection 9" of 0$e Real Propert& 0ax .ode. 4965 Callanta v. ffice of the m!udsman, supra note 99, at 661-66#. 49!5 (ollo ,G.R. No. 1!"6#8-, pp. 6#-69. 4985 3anila +lectric Company v. Barlis, G. R. No. 112#91, 7une #6, #""2, 299 *.R1 11, 9#. 4965 +d. at 9#-99. 42"5 *ee Bor$a +state v. Ballad, G.R. No. 1 # ", 7une 8, #"" , 2 6 *.R1 6 !, 668, 6!". 4215 Cru4 v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162!6!, 'e%ruar& 19, #""6, 28# *.R1 9!6, 96 , citing "eirs of the 'ate 5austina Adalid v. Court of Appeals, 2 6 *.R1 #!, 21 ,#"" -. 42#5 G.R. No. 19866", 'e%ruar& , #""2, 2## *.R1 1"1. 4295 +d. at 116. 4225 3unicipality of &a#ui# v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 12#616, *eptem%er 19, #"" , 266 *.R1 88, 62- 6 . 42 5 5oronda v. 2uerrero, 1dm. .ase No. 266, 1ugust 1", #""2, 296 *.R1 6, #9. 4265 6ee v. 2alve4, G.R. No. 12!962, 1ugust 11, #""2, 296 *.R1 66, 1"8-1"6. 42!5 "on#.on# and 0han#hai Ban.in# Corporation 'imited v. Catalan , G.R. Nos. 1 6 6" and 1 6 61, ;cto%er 18, #""2, 22" *.R1 268, 1912. 4285 Commissioner of /nternal (evenue v. "antex &radin# Co., /nc., G.R. No. 1966! , <arc$ 91, #"" , 2 2 *.R1 9"1, 9#6. 4265 Ca#ayan (o!ina 0u#ar 3illin# Co. v. Court of Appeals, 966 P$il. 89", 82" ,#"""-. 4 "5 8" <isc.#d 1"6 ,16! -. 4 15 7. Gitug, .+G+) )1= G;)F<( ++, PR;P(R0H, ;=N(R*A+P, 1N3 +0* <;3+'+.10+;N*, 9-2 ,#""9-. 4 #5 (ollo ,G.R. No. 168 !-, p. 19 . 4 95 +d. at 12#. ,(mp$asis supplied4 25 ' 7 ' 'awrence 5ootwear, /nc. v. 1C/ 'easin# and 5inance Corporation, G.R. No. 16" 91, 1ugust 9", #"" , 268 *.R1 969, 2"#. 4 5 Commissioner of /nternal (evenue v. 1hilippine 'on# )istance &elephone Company , G.R. No. 12"#9", 3ecem%er 1 , #"" , 2!8 *.R1 61, !2. 4 65 (epu!lic v. City of 8idapawan , G.R. No. 1666 1, 3ecem%er 6, #"" , 2!! *.R1 9#2, 99 , citing 0ea-'and 0ervice, /nc. v. Court of Appeals , 9 ! *.R1 221, 222 ,#""1-. 4 !5 3actan Ce!u /nternational Airport Authority v. 3arcos, G.R. No. 1#""8#, *eptem%er 11, 1666, #61 *.R1 66!, 6!6. 4 85 .;N*0+0F0+;N, *ection # , 1rticle ++, and *ection #, 1rticle I. 4 65 Repu%lic 1ct No. !16", *ection #,a-. 46"5 3actan Ce!u /nternational Airport Authority v. 3arcos, supra note 6, at 66".