YAMANE v LEPANTO

Petitioner: Luz Yamane

Respondent: BA Lepanto
Ponente: Tinga, J.
DOCTRINE: This is because appellate jurisdiction is defined as the
authority of a court higher in rank to re-examine the final order or
judgment of a lower court which tried the case now elevated for
judicial review. Here, the City Treasurer is not a lower court.
FACTS:
1. In 1998, BA Lepanto Condominium Corporation (Lepanto) received
a tax assessment in the amount of P1.6 million from Luz Yamane,
the City Treasurer of Makati, for business taxes.
2. Lepanto protested the assessment as it averred that Lepanto, as a
corporation, is not organized for profit; that it merely exists for the
maintenance of the condominium. Yamane denied the protest.
Lepanto then appealed the denial to the RTC of Makati. RTC
Makati affirmed the decision of Yamane.
3. Lepanto then filed a petition for review under Rule 42 with the Court
of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC.
4. Yamane now filed a petition for review under Rule 45 with the
Supreme Court. Yamane avers that a.) Lepanto is liable for local
taxation because its act of maintaining the condominium is an
activity for profit because the end result of such activity is the
betterment of the market value of the condominium which makes it
easier to sell it; that Lepanto is earning profit from fees collected
from condominium unit owners; and that b.)
5. Lepantos petition for review of the decision of the RTC to the CA is
erroneous because when the RTC decided on the appeal brought
to it by Lepanto, the RTC was exercising its original jurisdiction and
not its appellate jurisdiction; that as such, what Lepanto should
have done is to file an ordinary appeal under Rule 41.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not a RTC deciding an appeal from the decision of
a city treasurer on tax protests is exercising original
jurisdiction.
RULING + RATIO:
1. YES.
a. Yes. Although the LGC (Section 195) provides that the remedy
of the taxpayer whose protest is denied by the local treasurer is
to appeal with the court of competent jurisdiction or in this
case the RTC (considering the amount of tax liability is P1.6
million), such appeal when decided by the RTC is still in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction and not its appellate
jurisdiction.
b. This is because appellate jurisdiction is defined as the
authority of a court higher in rank to re-examine the final
order or judgment of a lower court which tried the case
now elevated for judicial review. Here, the City Treasurer is
not a lower court.
c. The Supreme Court however clarifies that this ruling is only
applicable to similar cases before the passage of Republic Act
9282 (effective April 2004). Under RA 9282, the Court of Tax
Appeals (CTA), not CA, exercises exclusive appellate
jurisdiction to review on appeal decisions, orders or resolutions
of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases whether originally
decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or
appellate jurisdiction.
d. Therefore, Petition for Review to the CA is not the proper
remedy, but should have been Rule 41.
DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.