9/5/2017 G.R. No.

202781

TodayisTuesday,September05,2017

ENBANC

January10,2017

G.R.No.202781

CRISANTO M. AALA, ROBERT N. BALAT, DATU BELARDO M. BUNGAD, CESAR B. CUNTAPAY, LAURA S.
DOMINGO,GLORIAM.GAZMENTAN,andJOCELYNP.SALUDARESCADAYONA,Petitioners,
vs.
REY T. UY, in his capacity as the City Mayor of Tagum City, Davao del Norte, MR. ALFREDO H.
HON.
SILAWAN,inhiscapacityasCityAssessorofTagumCity,HON.DECARLOL.UY,HON.ALLANL.RELLON,
HON.MARIALINAF.BAURA,HON.NICANDROT.SUAYBAGUIO,JR.,HON.ROBERTL.SO,HON.JOEDELT.
CAASI, HON. OSCAR M. BERMUDEZ, HON. ALAN D. ZULUETA, HON. GETERITO T. GEMENTIZA, HON.
TRISTAN ROYCE R. AALA, HON. FRANCISCO C. REMITAR, in their capacity as City Councilors of Tagum
City, Davao del Norte, HON. ALFREDO R. PAGDILAO, in his capacity as ABC representative, and HON.
MARIECAMILLEC.MANANSALA,inhercapacityasSKFrepresentative,Respondents.

DECISION

LEONEN,J.:

Partiesmustcomplywiththedoctrinesonhierarchyofcourtsandexhaustionofadministrativeremedies.Otherwise,
they run the risk of bringing premature cases before this Court, which may result to protracted litigation and
overcloggingofdockets.

This resolves the original action for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus1 filed by petitioners Crisanto M. Aala,
Robert N. Balat, Datu Belardo M. Bungad, Cesar B. Cuntapay, Laura S. Domingo, Gloria M. GazmenTan, and
JocelynP.SaludaresCadayona.2TheyquestionthevalidityofCityOrdinanceNo.558,s2012oftheCityofTagum,
DavaodelNorte,whichtheSangguniangPanlungsodofTagumCityenactedonMarch19,2012.3

OnJuly12,2011,theSangguniangPanlungsodofTagumCity'sCommitteeonFinanceconductedapublichearing
fortheapprovalofaproposedordinance.Theproposedordinancesoughttoadoptanewscheduleofmarketvalues
andassessmentlevelsofrealpropertiesinTagumCity4.

OnNovember3,2011,theSangguniangPanlungsodofTagumCitypassedCityOrdinanceNo.516,s2011,entitled
An Ordinance Approving the New Schedule of Market Values, its Classification, and Assessment Level of Real
Properties in the City of Tagum. 5 The ordinance was approved by Mayor Rey T. Uy (Mayor Uy) on November
11,2011andwasimmediatelyforwardedtotheSangguniangPanlalawiganofDavaodelNorteforreview.6

OnFebruary7,2012,theSangguniangPanlalawiganofDavaodelNorte'sCommitteeonWaysandMeans/Games
andAmusementissuedareportdatedFebruary1,2012declaringCityOrdinanceNo.516,s2011valid. 7 It also
directedtheSangguniangPanlungsodofTagumCitytorevisetheordinancebasedontherecommendationsofthe
ProvincialAssessor'sOffice.8

Consequently,theSangguniangPanlalawiganofDavaodelNortereturnedCityOrdinanceNo.516,s2011tothe
SangguniangPanlungsodofTagumCityformodification.9

AsaresultoftheamendmentsintroducedtoCityOrdinanceNo.516,s2011,onMarch19,2012,theSangguniang
PanlungsodofTagumCitypassedCityOrdinanceNo.558,s2012. 10ThenewordinancewasapprovedbyMayor
UyonApril10,2012.Onthesameday,itwastransmittedforreviewtotheSangguniangPanlalawiganofDavaodel
Norte.TheSangguniangPanlalawiganofDavaodelNortereceivedtheproposedordinanceonApril12,2012.11

OnApril30,2012,EngineerCrisantoM.Aala(Aala)andColonelJorgeP.Ferido(Ferido),bothresidentsofTagum
City,filedbeforetheSangguniangPanlalawiganofDavaodelNorteanOpposition/ObjectiontoCityOrdinanceNo.
558,s2012.12TheoppositionwasdocketedasCaseNo.DOCS12000362andwasreferredtotheCommitteeon
WaysandMeans/GamesandAmusement. 13TheCommitteeconductedahearingtotacklethemattersraisedin
theOpposition.14
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_202781_2017.html 1/13
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 202781
PresentatthehearingwereoppositorsAalaandFerido,theircounsel,AlfredoH.Silawan,CityAssessorofTagum
City,andAtty.RolandoTumanda,CityLegalOfficerofTagumCity.15

In their Opposition/Objection, 16 Aala and Ferido asserted that City Ordinance No. 558, s2012 violated Sections
130(a), 17 198(a) and (b), 18 199(b), 19 and 20120 of the Local Government Code of 1991. 21 They alleged that
SectionsIIIC1,2,and3aswellasSectionsIIIG1(b)and4(g)22oftheproposedordinancedividedTagumCityinto
different zones, classified real properties per zone, and fixed its market values depending on where they were
situated23withouttakingintoaccountthe"distinctandfundamentaldifferences...andelementsofvalue"24ofeach
property.

Aala and Ferido asserted that the proposed ordinance classified and valued those properties located in a
predominantlycommercialareaascommercial,regardlessofthepurposetowhichtheyweredevoted.25According
tothem,thiswaserroneousbecauserealpropertyshouldbeclassified,valued,andassessednotaccordingtoits
locationbutonthebasisofactualuse.26Moreover,theypointedoutthattheproposedordinanceimposedexorbitant
realestatetaxes,whichtheresidentsofTagumCitycouldnotaffordtopay.27

Afterthehearing,theSangguniangPanlalawiganofDavaodelNorte'sCommitteeonWaysandMeans/Gamesand
AmusementissuedCommitteeReportNo.5datedMay4,2012,whichreturnedCityOrdinanceNo.558,s2012to
theSangguniangPanlungsodofTagumCity.28TheSangguniangPanlalawiganofDavaodelNortealsodirectedthe
SangguniangPanlungsodofTagumCitytogiveattentionandduecoursetotheoppositors'concerns.29

On May 22, 2012, the Sangguniang Panlungsod ofTagum City issued Resolution No. 808, s2012 dated May 14,
2012,requestingtheSangguniangPanlalawiganofDavaodelNortetoreconsideritspositiononCityOrdinanceNo.
558,s2012.30

On June 18, 2012, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao del Norte issued Resolution No. 42831 declaring as
invalidSectionsIIIC1,2,and3,SectionsIIID(1)and(2),andSectionsGl(b)and4(g)ofCityOrdinanceNo.558,
s2012.32

However, on July 9, 2012, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City passed Resolution No. 874, s2012
declaringCityOrdinanceNo.558,s2012asvalid.33TheSangguniangPanlungsodofTagumCitycitedasitsbasis
Section56(d)34oftheLocal.GovernmentCodeof1991andDepartmentofInteriorandLocalGovernmentOpinion
No.151datedNovember25,2010.35ItarguedthattheSangguniangPanlalawiganofDavaodelNortefailedtotake
actiononCityOrdinanceNo.558,s2012within30daysfromitsreceiptonApril12,2012.36Hence,underSection
56(d)oftheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991,CityOrdinanceNo.558,s2012enjoysthepresumptionofvalidity.37

On July 13, 2012, City Ordinance No. 558, s2012 was published in the July 1319, 2012 issue of Trends and
Time,38anewspaperofgeneralcirculationinTagumCity.39

AlarmedbytheimpendingimplementationofCityOrdinanceNo.558,s2012,petitionersfiledbeforethisCourtan
originalactionforCertiorari,Prohibition,andMandamusonAugust13,2012.40ThePetitionincludedaprayerforthe
issuanceofatemporaryrestrainingorderandawritofpreliminaryinjunction.41

IntheirPetition,petitionersseektonullifytheordinanceonthegroundthatrespondentsenacteditwithgraveabuse
ofdiscretion.42PetitionersinvokethisCourt'soriginaljurisdictionunderArticleVIII,Section5(1)oftheConstitution43
inviewoftheneedtoimmediatelyresolvetheissuestheyhaveraised.44

PetitionersallegethatthereisanurgentneedtorestraintheimplementationofCityOrdinanceNo.558,s2012.45
Otherwise,theCityGovernmentofTagumwouldproceedwith"thecollectionofexorbitantrealpropertytaxestothe
greatdamageandprejudiceof...petitionersandthethousandsoftaxpayersinhabitingTagumCity[.]"46

OnOctober16,2012,respondentGeteritoT.Gementiza(Gementiza)filedaMotion47prayingthathebedroppedas
arespondentinthecase.AccordingtorespondentGementiza,hehadopposedthepassageofCityOrdinanceNo.
558, s2012 during the deliberations of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City.48 In the Resolution49 dated
October23,2012,thisCourtrequiredthepartiestofileacommentonrespondentGementiza'sMotion.

OnOctober31,2012,respondentsfiledaComment50onthePetition.IntheResolution51datedDecember4,2012,
thisCourtnotedtheCommentandrequiredpetitionerstofileareplytotheComment.

Meanwhile,onFebruary20,2013,respondentsfiledaManifestation52

statingthattheimplementationofCityOrdinanceNo.558,s2012hadbeen

deferredduetothewideextentofdamagecausedbyTyphoonPabloinTagumCity.53

OnFebruary25,2013,petitionersandrespondentsfiledtheirrespectiveComments54onrespondentGementiza's
Motion. Petitioners argued that the passage of the questioned ordinance was a collegial act of the Sangguniang
PanlungsodofTagumCity,ofwhichrespondentGementizawasamember.Hence,respondentGementizashould
stillbeimpleadedinthecaseregardlessofwhetherornotheopposedthepassageoftheordinance.55

OnMarch6,2013,petitionersfiledaReply56totheCommentdatedOctober18,2012. 1wphi1

IntheResolution57datedMarch19,2013,thisCourtgaveduecoursetothePetition,treatedrespondents'Comment
as an answer, and required the parties to submit their memoranda. On July 10, 2013, petitioners filed their

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_202781_2017.html 2/13
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 202781
Memorandum datedJune20,2013.OnSeptember6,2013,respondentsfiledtheirMemorandum59datedAugust
58

2,2013.

PetitionersallegethatTagumCityispredominantlyagricultural. 60Althoughitboastsofexpansivehighways"lined
withtallpalmtrees"andastateoftheartcityhall,TagumCitystillhasanoutstandingdebtof450million.61 The
incomelevelofits240,000inhabitantsremainsconstant,andduetounreasonablebusinesstaxes,mostbusinesses
haveeitherscaleddownorclosed.62

Setagainstthisfactualbackdrop,petitionersassailthevalidityofCityOrdinanceNo.558,s2012. Theyclaimthat
1wphi1

the ordinance imposes exorbitant real estate taxes because of the Sangguniang Panlungsod's erroneous
classificationandvaluationofrealproperties.63

Petitioners are concerned residents of Tagum City who would be directly affected by the implementation of the
questioned ordinance.64 Wellaware of the doctrines on the hierarchy of courts and exhaustion of administrative
remedies,theybegthisCourt'sindulgencetoallowimmediateanddirectresorttoit.65Accordingtopetitioners,this
caseisexemptfromtheapplicationofthedoctrineonhierarchyofcourts.Theyanchortheirclaimontheground
thattheredresstheydesirecannotbeobtainedintheappropriatecourts. 66Furthermore,petitionersassertthatthe
issue they have raised is purely legal and that the case involves paramount public interest, which warrants the
relaxationoftheruleonexhaustionofadministrativeremedies.67

Petitioners believe that compliance with Section 187 of the Local Government Code of 1991 would harm the
taxpayers of Tagum City. 68 They argue that the cited provision hardly constitutes an efficacious remedy that can
provide the redress they urgently seek. 69 According to petitioners, there is nothing that would prevent the City
GovernmentofTagumfromcollectingexorbitantrealpropertytaxessincetheSecretaryofJusticedoesnothavethe
power to suspend the implementation of the questioned ordinance.70 Moreover, the 60day period given to the
SecretaryofJusticewithinwhichtorenderadecisionwouldmerelyconstitutedelayandgivetheCityGovernment
ofTagumenoughtimetoassessandcollectexorbitantrealpropertytaxes.71

Petitioners also believe that upon receipt of an assessment, they would be precluded from questioning the
excessivenessoftherealpropertytaximposedbywayofprotest.72UndertheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991,the
amountofrealpropertytaxassessedmustfirstbepaidbeforeaprotestmaybeentertained.73However,petitioners
contend that the taxpayers of Tagum City would not be able to comply with this rule due to lack of money. 74
PetitionersjustifyimmediateresorttothisCourtduetothisimpasse.75

IntheirComment, 76respondentsattacktheproprietyoftheremedyofwhichpetitionershaveavailedthemselves.
Respondentspointoutthattheextraordinaryremedyofcertiorariisonlydirectedagainstjudicialandquasijudicial
acts. 77 According to respondents, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City exercised a legislative function in
enactingthequestionedordinanceandis,thus,beyondthescopeofapetitionforcertiorari.78Moreover,thereisa
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available to petitioners under the law. 79 Citing Section 187 of the Local
GovernmentCodeof1991,respondentsarguethatpetitionersshouldhaveexhaustedadministrativeremediesby
filinganappealbeforetheSecretaryofJustice.80

RespondentsfurtherarguethatindirectlyfilingtheirPetitionbeforethisCourt,petitionersviolatedthedoctrineon
hierarchy of courts.81 They stress that the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and the Regional Trial Courts have
concurrentjurisdictiontoissuewritsofcertiorari,prohibition,andmandamus.82

RespondentsalsoallegethatthePetitionraisesfactualissues,whichwarrantsthedismissalofthePetition.83

Goingintothesubstantiveaspectofthecase,petitionerscontendthattheordinancecreatedonlytwo(2)categories
ofrealproperties.PetitionerspointoutthatSectionsIIICandD,whichpertaintotheclassificationofcommercial
and industrial lands, list all the streets and barrios in Tagum City. 84 Because of this, petitioners argue that the
ordinanceeffectivelycategorizedalllandsinTagumCityeitherintocommercialorindustriallands,regardlessofthe
purposetowhichtheyweredevotedandtheextentoftheirdevelopment.85

Petitioners further contend that since all lands in Tagum City had been classified as commercial or industrial, all
buildingsandimprovementswouldlikewisebeclassifiedascommercialorindustrial.Otherwise,anabsurdsituation
wouldarisewherethebuildingandthelandonwhichitstandswouldhaveadifferentclassification.86

Inotherwords,petitionersclaimthattheordinancecreatedablanketclassificationofrealpropertieswithoutregard
totheprincipleofactualuse.Tothemindofpetitioners,thisblanketclassification"doesnotconformtothereality
that Tagum City is not that far advanced and commercially developed like Ayala Avenue [in] Makati City where
[almostall]ofthepropertiesfrontingtheentirebreadthofAyalaAvenueare...usedforcommercialpurposes."87

Inclassifyingrealpropertiesbasedonlocation,petitionersarguethattheordinancecontravenesSection217ofthe
LocalGovernmentCodeof1991,whichprovidesthat"[r]ealpropertyshallbeclassified,valuedandassessedon
thebasisofitsactualuseregardlessofwherelocated,whoeverownsit,andwhoeverusesit."88Petitionershighlight
thenecessityinproperlyclassifyingrealpropertiesbasedonactualusebecausetheclassificationofrealproperty
determinestheassessmentlevelthatwouldbeappliedincomputingtherealpropertytaxdue.89

Petitioners add that because all real properties in Tagum City were classified into commercial or industrial
properties,theirvaluationwouldthencorrespondtothatofcommercialorindustrialpropertiesasthecasemaybe.90
In effect, the ordinance provided a uniform market value for all real properties without regard to the principle of
actualuse.91Accordingtopetitioners,thisiserroneous.Theyfurtheraddthatthescheduleoffairmarketvalueswas
arbitrarilypreparedbythosewhodonotknowthebasicprinciplesofpropertyvaluation.92
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_202781_2017.html 3/13
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 202781
Bywayofexample,petitionerspointoutthatthemarketvaluesofresidentiallands,whichwerereclassifiedunder
theordinanceascommercial,increasedfrom600.00persquaremeterto5,000.00persquaremeter,orby833%
inaspanofonlythree(3)years.93Accordingtopetitioners,thisviolatesSection191oftheLocalGovernmentCode
of1991.94

Petitioners allege that the ordinance equated the market values of unused and undeveloped lands to that of fully
developed lands. 95 Hence, the ordinance discriminates against poor land owners who do not have the means to
pay the increased amount of real property taxes.96 Petitioners claim that what the Sangguniang Panlungsod had
actuallydeterminedwerethezonalvaluesofrealpropertiesinTagumCityandnotthemarketvalues.97

Petitioners contend that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in fixing the new schedule of market
values by usurping or arrogating unto itself the City Assessor's authority to fix the schedule of market values.98
Being"personallyacquaintedwiththenature,condition,andvalueofthesaidrealproperties"inagivenlocality,the
City Assessor is in the best position to fix the schedule of market values.99 However, petitioners believe that the
schedule of market values was prepared by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City, and not by the City
Assessor.100TheyalsobelievethattheCityAssessorabdicatedhisdutyandunlawfullyneglectedtoperformwhat
wasmandatedunderSection212oftheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991.101

PetitionersconcludethatwhattheSangguniangPanlungsodofTagumCityhadundertakenwasageneralrevision
ofrealpropertyassessmentsandpropertyclassificationunderSection212oftheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991.
102
Theyarguethat"thegeneralrevisionof[realproperty]assessmentsandpropertyclassificationcannotbemade
simultaneouslywiththeordinanceadopting[anew]scheduleoffairmarketvalues."103

Petitioners raise the sole substantive issue of whether respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in
preparing,enacting,andapprovingCityOrdinanceNo.558,s2012,whichimposesexorbitantrealpropertytaxesin
violationoftheequalprotectionclause,dueprocessclause,andtheruleonuniformityintaxation.104

On the other hand, respondents argue that petitioners misconstrued the ordinance. 105 They claim that a careful
reading of the provisions would reveal that there were four (4) categories by which real properties were to be
classified, valued, and assessed, namely: agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial. 106 Although the
ordinancelistsspecificroadsandareasinTagumCityclassifiedascommercialandindustrial,thisdoesnotmean
thatallpropertieslocatedincommercialandindustrialareaswouldautomaticallybeclassifiedassuch.107

Respondentsstressthattheprincipleofactualusestillplaysanimportantroleintheclassificationandassessment
ofrealproperties.108Forthepropercomputationoftherealpropertytaxdue,realpropertieslocatedincommercial
andindustrialareaswillbeassesseddependingonhowtheyareused. 109Toillustrate,ifaparceloflandlocated
alongacommercialareaisusedpartlyforcommercialpurposesandpartlyforagriculturalpurposes,thenthefair
marketvalueoftheportionusedforcommercialpurposeswillcorrespondtothatofcommerciallands,whilethefair
marketvalueoftheportionusedforagriculturalpurposeswillcorrespondtothatofagriculturallands.110

RespondentsreiteratetheirclaimthattheSangguniangPanlalawiganofDavaodelNorteactedbeyondthe30day
reglementaryperiodunderSection56(d)oftheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991. 111 Citing Department of Interior
and Local Government's Opinion No. 151 dated November 25, 2010, respondents argue that the phrase "take
action" means that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, within 30 days from receipt of the ordinance or resolution,
"should have issued their legislative action in the form of a [r]esolution containing their disapproval in whole or in
part [of] any ordinance or resolution submitted to them for review[.]" 112 Since the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
DavaodelNortereceivedthequestionedordinanceonApril12,2012,ithaduntilMay12,2012totakeaction. 113
However,theSangguniangPanlalawiganofDavaodelNorteonlyissuedResolutionNo.428onJune18,2012.114

ForthisCourt'sresolutionarethefollowingissues:

Procedural

First,whetherthiscasefallsundertheexceptionstothedoctrineonhierarchyofcourts

Second,whetherthiscasefallsundertheexceptionstotheruleonexhaustionofadministrativeremedies

Third,whetherpetitionerscorrectlyavailedthemselvesoftheextraordinaryremediesofcertiorari, prohibition, and

mandamusand

Lastly,whetherrespondentGementizashouldbedroppedasarespondentinthecase.

Substantive

First, whether respondents committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
preparing,enacting,andapprovingCityOrdinanceNo.558,s2012

Second, whether City Ordinance No. 558, s2012 classifies all real properties in Tagum City into commercial or
industrialpropertiesonly

Third,whethertheschedulemarketvaluesconformtotheprinciplethatrealpropertiesshallbevaluedonthebasis
ofactualuse

Fourth,whetherCityOrdinanceNo.558,s2012imposesexorbitantrealpropertytaxesand

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_202781_2017.html 4/13
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 202781
Lastly,whetherCityOrdinanceNo.558,s2012isunconstitutionalforviolationoftheequalprotectionclause,due
processclause,andtheruleonuniformityintaxation.

WedenythePetitionforseriousproceduralerrors.

Thedoctrineonhierarchyofcourtsisapracticaljudicialpolicydesignedtorestrainpartiesfromdirectlyresortingto
thisCourtwhenreliefmaybeobtainedbeforethelowercourts. 115Thelogicbehindthispolicyisgroundedonthe
needtoprevent"inordinatedemandsupontheCourt'stimeandattentionwhicharebetterdevotedtothosematters
withinitsexclusivejurisdiction,"aswellastopreventthecongestionoftheCourt'sdockets.116Hence,forthisCourt
tobeableto"satisfactorilyperformthefunctionsassignedtoitbythefundamentalcharter[,]"itmustremainasa
"courtoflastresort." 117ThiscanbeachievedbyrelievingtheCourtofthe"taskofdealingwithcausesinthefirst
instance."118

AsexpresslyprovidedintheConstitution,thisCourthasoriginaljurisdiction"overpetitionsforcertiorari,prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus."119 However, this Court has emphasized in People v.
Cuaresma120that the power to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus does not exclusively pertain to
thisCourt. 121 Rather, it is shared with the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts. 122 Nevertheless, "this
concurrence of jurisdiction" does not give parties unfettered discretion as to the choice of forum. The doctrine on
hierarchyofcourtsisdeterminativeoftheappropriatevenuewherepetitionsforextraordinarywritsshouldbefiled.
123
Partiescannotrandomlyselectthecourtorforumtowhichtheiractionswillbedirected.

ThereisanotherreasonwhythisCourtenjoinsstrictadherencetothedoctrineonhierarchyofcourts.Asexplained
inDioceseofBacolodv.CommissiononElections,124"[t]hedoctrinethatrequiresrespectforthehierarchyofcourts
wascreatedbythiscourttoensurethateverylevelofthejudiciaryperformsitsdesignatedrolesinaneffectiveand
efficientmanner."125Thus:

Trialcourtsdonotonlydeterminethefactsfromtheevaluationoftheevidencepresentedbeforethem.
Theyarelikewisecompetenttodetermineissuesoflawwhichmayincludethevalidityofanordinance,
statute, or even an executive issuance in relation to the Constitution. To effectively perform these
functions, they are territorially organized into regions and then into branches. Their writs generally
reach within those territorial boundaries. Necessarily, they mostly perform the allimportant task of
inferringthefactsfromtheevidenceasthesearephysicallypresentedbeforethem.Inmanyinstances,
the facts occur within their territorial jurisdiction, which properly present the 'actual case' that makes
ripe a determination of the constitutionality of such action. The consequences, of course, would be
nationalinscope.Thereare,however,somecaseswhereresorttocourtsattheirlevelwouldnotbe
practicalconsideringtheirdecisionscouldstillbeappealedbeforethehighercourts,suchastheCourt
ofAppeals.

TheCourtofAppealsisprimarilydesignedasanappellatecourtthatreviewsthedeterminationoffacts
andlawmadebythetrialcourts.Itiscollegiateinnature.Thisnatureensuresmorestandpointsinthe
reviewoftheactionsofthetrialcourt.ButtheCourtofAppealsalsohasoriginaljurisdictionovermost
special civil actions. Unlike the trial courts, its writs can have a nationwide scope. It is competent to
determine facts and, ideally, should act on constitutional issues that may not necessarily be novel
unlesstherearefactualquestionstodetermine.

Thiscourt,ontheotherhand,leadsthejudiciarybybreakingnewgroundorfurtherreiteratinginthe
light of new circumstances or in the light of some confusions of bench or bar existing precedents.
RatherthanacourtoffirstinstanceorasarepetitionoftheactionsoftheCourtofAppeals,thiscourt
promulgatesthesedoctrinaldevicesinorderthatittrulyperformsthatrole.126(Citationomitted)

Consequently,thisCourtwillnotentertaindirectresorttoitwhenreliefcanbeobtainedinthelowercourts. 127This
holdsespeciallytruewhenquestionsoffactareraised. 128UnlikethisCourt,trialcourtsandtheCourtofAppeals
are better equipped to resolve questions of fact. 129 They are in the best position to deal with causes in the first
instance.

However,thedoctrineonhierarchyofcourtsisnotaninflexiblerule.130InSpousesChuav.Ang, 131thisCourtheld
that"[a]strictapplicationofthisrulemaybeexcusedwhenthereasonbehindtheruleisnotpresentinacase[.]"132
ThisCourthasrecognizedthatadirectinvocationofitsoriginaljurisdictionmaybewarrantedinexceptionalcases
aswhentherearecompellingreasonsclearlysetforthinthepetition,133orwhenwhatisraisedisapurequestionof
law.134

In a fairly recent case, we summarized other welldefined exceptions to the doctrine on hierarchy of courts.
Immediate resort to this Court may be allowed when any of the following grounds are present: (1) when genuine
issuesofconstitutionalityareraisedthatmustbeaddressedimmediately(2)whenthecaseinvolvestranscendental
importance(3)whenthecaseisnovel(4)whentheconstitutionalissuesraisedarebetterdecidedbythisCourt
(5) when time is of the essence (6) when the subject of review involves acts of a constitutional organ (7) when
there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law (8) when the petition includes
questionsthatmayaffectpublicwelfare,publicpolicy,ordemandedbythebroaderinterestofjustice(9)whenthe
ordercomplainedofwasapatentnullityand(10)whentheappealwasconsideredasaninappropriateremedy.135

None of the exceptions to the doctrine on hierarchy of courts are present in this case. Significantly, although
petitionersraisequestionsoflaw,otherinterrelatedfactualissueshaveemergedfromtheparties'arguments,which
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_202781_2017.html 5/13
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 202781
thisCourtdeemsindispensablefortheproperdispositionofthiscase.

InRepublicv.Sandiganbayan,136thisCourtexplainedthataquestionoffactexists:

when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites
calibrationofthewholeevidenceconsideringmainlythecredibilityofthewitnesses,theexistenceand
relevancyofspecificsurroundingcircumstancesaswellastheirrelationtoeachotherandtothewhole,
andtheprobabilityofthesituation.137(Citationsomitted)

The resolution of the first substantive issue of whether respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in
preparing, enacting, and approving City Ordinance No. 558, s2012 requires the presentation of evidence on the
procedureundertakenbytheCityGovernmentofTagum.

Thesecondsubstantiveissue,whichinvolvestheallegedblanketclassificationofrealproperties,islikewisefactual
in nature. There is still a dispute on whether the questioned ordinance truly limited the classification of real
properties into two (2) categories. This Court cannot resolve this issue without further evidence from the parties,
particularlyfromtheSangguniangPanlungsodofTagumCity.

The third and fourth issues, which are essential for the proper disposition of this case, are questions of fact. To
determinewhetherthescheduleoffairmarketvaluesconformstotheprincipleofactualuserequiresevidencefrom
the person or persons who prepared it. These individuals must show the process and method they employed in
arrivingatthescheduleofmarketvalues.

It is worth mentioning that several of petitioners' assertions, on which their arguments are based, are purely
speculative. For instance, petitioners claim that the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tagum City usurped the City
Assessor's authority in fixing the schedule of fair market values. 138 Yet, they offer no evidence to support their
allegation. They merely rely on a comparison between the new schedule of market values and the schedule of
marketva1uesinapreviousordinance.139

Withregardtothefourthissue,petitionersinvitethisCourttocomparethenewscheduleoffairmarketvalueswith
theoldscheduleoffairmarketvaluesanddeterminewhethertheincreasewasexorbitant.Intheabsenceofany
evidence,thisCourtdoesnothavethetechnicalexpertisetomakesuchdetermination.Wecannotsimplyrelyon
barenumbers.

Inordertoresolvethesefactualissues,wewillbetaskedtoreceiveevidencefrombothparties.However,theinitial
receptionandappreciationofevidencearefunctionsthatthisCourtcannotperform.Thesefunctionsarebestleftto
the trial courts. This Court is not a trier of facts. 140 The factual issues in this case should have been raised and
ventilatedintheproperforum.

II

Parties are generally precluded from immediately seeking the intervention of courts when "the law provides for
remedies against the action of an administrative board, body, or officer."141 The practical purpose behind the
principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies is to provide an orderly procedure by giving the administrative
agencyan"opportunitytodecidethematterbyitselfcorrectly[and]topreventunnecessaryandprematureresortto
thecourts."142

UnderSection187oftheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991,aggrievedtaxpayerswhoquestionthevalidityorlegality
ofataxordinancearerequiredtofileanappealbeforetheSecretaryofJusticebeforetheyseekinterventionfrom
theregularcourts.Section187oftheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991provides:

SECTION 187. Procedure for Approval and Effectivity of Tax Ordinances and Revenue Measures
Mandatory Public Hearings. The procedure for approval of local tax ordinances and revenue
measuresshallbeinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthisCode:Provided,Thatpublichearingsshall
beconductedforthepurposepriorto the enactmentthereof:Provided,further,That any question on
theconstitutionalityorlegalityoftaxordinancesorrevenuemeasuresmayberaisedonappealwithin
thirty(30)daysfromtheeffectivitythereoftotheSecretaryofJusticewhoshallrenderadecisionwithin
sixty(60)daysfromthedateofreceiptoftheappeal:Provided,however,That such appeal shall not
havetheeffectofsuspendingtheeffectivityoftheordinanceandtheaccrualandpaymentofthetax,
fee,orchargeleviedtherein:Provided,finally,Thatwithinthirty(30)daysafterreceiptofthedecisionor
thelapseofthesixtydayperiodwithouttheSecretaryofJusticeactingupontheappeal,theaggrieved
partymayfileappropriateproceedingswithacourtofcompetentjurisdiction.

InReyesv.CourtofAppeals, 143thisCourtdeclaredthemandatorynatureofSection187oftheLocalGovernment
Codeof1991:

[T]helawrequiresthatthedissatisfiedtaxpayerwhoquestionsthevalidityorlegalityofataxordinancemustfilehis
appealtotheSecretaryofJustice,within30daysfromeffectivitythereof.IncasetheSecretarydecidestheappeal,
aperiodalsoof30daysisallowedforanaggrievedpartytogotocourt.ButiftheSecretarydoesnotactthereon,
afterthelapseof60days,apartycouldalreadyproceedtoseekreliefincourt.Thesethreeseparateperiodsare
clearlygivenforcomplianceasaprerequisitebeforeseekingredressinacompetentcourt.Suchstatutoryperiods
aresettopreventdelaysaswellasenhancetheorderlyandspeedydischargeofjudicialfunctions.Forthisreason
thecourtsconstruetheseprovisionsofstatutesasmandatory.144(Emphasissupplied,citationsomitted)

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_202781_2017.html 6/13
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 202781
The same principle was reiterated in Jardine Davies Insurance Brokers, Inc. v. Aliposa. 145 In Jardine, the then
SangguniangBayanofMakatienactedMunicipalOrdinanceNo.92072,otherwiseknownastheMakatiRevenue
Code,whichprovidedforthescheduleof"realestate,business,andfranchisetaxes...atrateshigherthanthose
in the Metro Manila Revenue Code." Under this ordinance, Jardine Davies Insurance Brokers, Inc. (Jardine) was
assessedtaxes,fees,andcharges.Jardinebelievedthattheordinancewasvoid.ItfiledbeforetheRegionalTrial
Courtacaseseekingarefundforallegedoverpaymentoftaxes.Thetrialcourtdismissedthecomplaint.Aggrieved,
JardinefiledbeforethisCourtaPetitionforreviewraisingpurequestionsoflaw.RulingonthePetition,thisCourt
observed that Jardine essentially questioned the validity of the tax ordinance without filing an appeal before the
SecretaryofJustice,inviolationofSection187oftheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991:

In this case, petitioner, relying on the resolution of the Secretary of Justice in The Philippine Racing
Club,Inc.v.MunicipalityofMakaticase,positedinitscomplaintthattheordinancewhichwasthebasis
ofrespondentMakatiforthecollectionoftaxesfrompetitionerwasnullandvoid.However,theCourt
agreeswiththecontentionofrespondentsthatpetitionerwasproscribedfromfilingitscomplaintwith
theRTCofMakatiforthereasonthatpetitionerfailedtoappealtotheSecretaryofJusticewithin30
daysfromtheeffectivitydateoftheordinanceasmandatedbySection187oftheLocalGovernment
Code[.]146

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, like the doctrine on hierarchy of courts, is not an ironclad
rule.Itadmitsofseveralwelldefinedexceptions.ProvinceofZamboangadelNortev.CourtofAppeals147hasheld
thattheprincipleofexhaustionofadministrativeremediesmaybedispensedinthefollowinginstances:

(1)[W]henthereisaviolationofdueprocess(2)whentheissueinvolvedispurelyalegalquestion(3)
whentheadministrativeactionispatentlyillegalandamountstolackorexcessofjurisdiction(4)when
there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned (5) when there is irreparable
injury(6)whentherespondentisadepartmentsecretarywhoseacts,asanalteregoofthePresident,
bearstheimpliedandassumedapprovalofthelatter(7)whentorequireexhaustionofadministrative
remedieswouldbeunreasonable(8)whenitwouldamounttoanullificationofaclaim(9)whenthe
subjectmatterisaprivatelandinlandcaseproceedings(10)whentheruledoesnotprovideaplain,
speedy and adequate remedy (11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial
intervention and unreasonable delay would greatly prejudice the complainant (12) when no
administrativereviewisprovidedbylaw(13)wheretheruleofqualifiedpoliticalagencyappliesand
(14)whentheissueofnonexhaustionofadministrativeremedieshasbeenrenderedmoot.148

Thus,inAltaVistaGolfandCountryClubv.CityofCebu,149thisCourtexcludedthecasefromthestrictapplication
of the principle on exhaustion of administrative remedies, particularly for noncompliance with Section 187 of the
LocalGovernmentCodeof1991,onthegroundthattheissueraisedinthePetitionwaspurelylegal.150

Inthiscase,however,theissuesinvolvedarenotpurelylegal.Therearefactualissuesthatneedtobeaddressed
fortheproperdispositionofthecase.Inotherwords,thiscaseisstillnotripeforadjudication.

Toquestionthevalidityoftheordinance,petitionersshouldhavefirstfiledanappealbeforetheSecretaryofJustice.
However,petitionersjustifydirectresorttothisCourtonthegroundthattheyareentangledina"catch22situation."
151
TheybelievethatfilinganappealbeforetheSecretaryofJusticewouldmerelydelaytheprocessandgivethe
CityGovernmentofTagumampletimetocollectrealpropertytaxes.152

ThequestionedordinancewaspublishedinJuly2012.153Hadpetitionersimmediatelyfiledanappeal,theSecretary
ofJusticewouldhavehadenoughtimetorenderadecision.Section187oftheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991
givestheSecretaryofJustice60daystoactontheappeal.Within30daysfromreceiptofanunfavorabledecision
oruponinactionbytheSecretaryofJusticewithinthetimeprescribed,aggrievedtaxpayersmayopttolodgethe
appropriateproceedingbeforetheregularcourts.154

The"catch22situation"petitionersalludetodoesnotexist.UnderSection166oftheLocalGovernmentCodeof
1991,localtaxes"shallaccrueonthefirst(1st)dayofJanuaryofeachyear."155Whenthequestionedordinancewas
published in July 2012, the City Government of Tagum could not have immediately issued real property tax
assessments.Hence,petitionershadampletimewithinwhichtoquestionthevalidityofthetaxordinance.

Incaseswherethevalidityorlegalityofataxordinanceisquestioned,therulethatrealpropertytaxesmustfirstbe
paid before a protest is lodged does not apply. Taxpayers must first receive an assessment before this rule is
triggered.156InJardine,thisCourtruledthatpriorpaymentunderprotestisnotrequired>>

whenthetaxpayerisquestioningtheveryauthorityoftheassessortoimposetaxes:

Hence,ifataxpayerdisputesthereasonablenessofanincreaseinarealestatetaxassessment,heis
requiredto"firstpaythetax"underprotest.Otherwise,thecityormunicipaltreasurerwillnotactonhis
protest.Inthecaseatbench,however,thepetitionersarequestioningtheveryauthorityandpowerof
theassessor,actingsolelyandindependently,toimposetheassessmentandofthetreasurertocollect
thetax.Thesearenotquestionsmerelyofamountsoftheincreaseinthetaxbutattacksonthevery
validityofanyincrease.157(Emphasisandcitationomitted)

Giventheseriousproceduralerrorscommittedbypetitioners,wefindnogenuinereasontodwellonandresolvethe
otherissuespresentedinthiscase.Thefactualissuesraisedbypetitionerscouldhavebeenproperlyaddressedby
thelowercourtshadtheyadheredtothedoctrinesofhierarchyofcourtsandexhaustionofadministrativeremedies.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_202781_2017.html 7/13
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 202781
Theseruleswereestablishedforareason.Whilepetitioners'enthusiasmintheiradvocacymaybeadmirable,their
overzealousnesshasfurtherdelayedtheircause.

WHEREFORE,thePetitionforCertiorari,Prohibition,andMandamusisDISMISSED.

SOORDERED.

MARVICM.V.F.LEONEN
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

ANTONIOT.CARPIO PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMIN MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

JOSECATRALMENDOZA BIENVENIDOL.REYES
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE FRANCISH.JARDELEZA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

ALFREDOBENJAMINS.CAGUIOA
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassigned
tothewriteroftheopinionofthecourt.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1
Rollo,pp.355.
2
Id.at3.
3
Id.at67.
4
Id.at236,Comment.
5
Id.at237.
6
Id.
7
Id.
8
Id.
9
Id.at238.
10
Id.
11
Id.
12
Id.at20.
13
Id.
14
Id.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_202781_2017.html 8/13
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 202781
15
Id
16
Id.at126135.
17
LOCALGOVT.CODE.sec.130(a)provides:

SECTION 130. Fundamental Principles. The following fundamental principles shall govern the
exerciseofthetaxingandotherrevenueraisingpowersoflocalgovernmentunits:

(a)Taxationshallbeuniformineachlocalgovernmentunit[.]
18
LOCALGOVT.CODE,sec.198(a)and(b)provide.

SECTION198Fundamental Principle. The appraisal, assessment levy and collection of real

propertytaxshallbeguidedbythefollowingfundamentalprinciples.

(a)Realproperlyshallbeappraisedatitscurrentandfairmarketvalue

(b)Realpropertyshallbeclassifiedforassessmentpurposesonthebasisofitsactual
use[.]
19
LOCALGOVT.CODE,sec.199(b)provides:

SECTION199.DefinitionofTerms.WhenusedinthisTitle,theterm:

....

(b)"ActualUse"referstothepurposeforwhichthepropertyisprincipallyorpredominantlyutilizedby
thepersoninpossessionthereof[.]
20
LOCALGOVT.CODE,sec.201provides:

SECTION 201. Appraisal of Real Property. All real property, whether taxable or exempt, shall be
appraisedatthecurrentandfairmarketvalueprevailinginthelocalitywherethepropertyissituated.
TheDepartmentofFinanceshallpromulgatethenecessaryrulesandregulationsfortheclassification,
appraisal,andassessmentofrealpropertypursuanttotheprovisionsofthisCode.
21
Rollo,pp.130134.
22
Id.at141,SupplementtoOpposition/Objection.
23
Id.at131and133.
24
Id.at131.
25
Id.at140.
26
Id.at141.
27
Id.at142.
28
Id.at145.
29
Id.
30
Id.at22.
31
Id.at155157.
32
Id.at23.
33
Id.
34
LOCALGOVT.CODE,sec.56(d)provides:

SECTION56.ReviewofComponentCityandMunicipalOrdinancesorResolutionsbythe
SangguniangPanlalawigan.

....

(d) If no action has been taken by the sangguniang panlalawigan within thirty (30) days after
submission of such an ordinance or resolution, the same shall be presumed consistent with law and
thereforevalid.
35
Id.at240241.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_202781_2017.html 9/13
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 202781
36
Id.at241.
37
Id.
38
Id.at166173,TrendsandTimetheNewspaper,pp.1014.
39
Id.at2324.
40
Id.at3.ThePetitionwasfiledunderRule65oftheRulesofCourt.
41
Id.at355.
42
Id.at6.
43
Id.at8.CONST.,art.VIII,sec.5provides:

SECTION5.TheSupremeCourtshallhavethefollowingpowers:

(1)Exerciseoriginaljurisdictionovercasesaffectingambassadors,otherpublicministersandconsuls,
andoverpetitionsforcertiorari,prohibition,mandamus,quowarranto,andhabeascorpus.
44
Id.at78.
45
Id.
46
Id.at47.
47
Id.at176181.
48
Id.at177.
49
Id.at222.
50
Id.at230256.
51
Id.at294.
52
Id.at296297.
53
Id.at297.
54
Id.at303305and307308.
55
Id.at308.
56
Id.at311320.
57
Id.at330A,Resolution.
58
Id.at331393.
59
Id.at410432.
60
Id.at4.
61
Id.
62
Id.at4and25.
63
Id.at30.
64
Id.at7.
65
Id.at89.
66
Id.at9.
67
Id.at14.
68
Id.at9.
69
Id.at10.
70
Id.
71
Id.at910.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_202781_2017.html 10/13
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 202781
72
Id.at11.
73
Id.
74
Id.
75
Id.at1012.
76
Id.at230256.
77
Id.at231.
78
Id.
79
Id.at232.
80
Id.at231234.
81
Id.at233234.
82
Id.
83
Id.at251252.
84
Id.at2425.
85
Id.
86
Id.at26.
87
Id.at2526.
88
Id.at27.
89
Id.
90
Id.at312.
91
Id.at28.
92
Id.at33.
93
Id.at43.
94
Id.
95
Id.at28.
96
Id.at2829.
97
Id.at35.
98
Id.at34.
99
Id.at32.
100
Id.at3234.
101
Id.at4546.
102
Rep.ActNo.7160(1991),sec.212provides:

SECTION 212. Preparation of Schedule of Fair Market Values. Before any general revision of
property assessment is made pursuant to the provisions of this Title, there shall be prepared a
schedule of fair market values by the provincial, city and municipal assessors of the municipalities
withintheMetropolitanManilaAreaforthedifferentclassesofrealpropertysituatedintheirrespective
localgovernmentunitsforenactmentbyordinanceofthesanggunianconcerned.Thescheduleoffair
market values shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the province, city or
municipality concerned, or in the absence thereof, shall be posted in the provincial capitol, city or
municipalhallandintwo(2)otherconspicuouspublicplacestherein.
103
Id.at39.
104
Id.at24.
105
Id.at244.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_202781_2017.html 11/13
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 202781
106
Id.
107
Id.at242247.
108
Id.at244.
109
Id.
110
Id.at244246.
111
Id.at240.
112
Id.at240.
113
Id.at241.
114
Id.at240.
115
SeeDeCastrov.Carlos,709Phil.389,396397(2013)[PerC.J.Sereno,EnBanc]Peoplev.Cuaresma,
254Phil.418,426428(1989)[PerJ.Narvasa,FirstDivision]Banez,Jr.v.Concepcion,693Phil.399,411
414 (2012) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division] Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap, Inc. v. Robredo, G.R.No.
200903,July22,2014,730SCRA322,332333(2014)[PerJ.Brion,EnBanc]Ouanov.PGTTInternational
Investment Corp., 434 Phil. 28, 3435 (2002) [Per J. SandovalGutierrez, Third Division] Vergara, Sr. v.
Suelto,240Phil.719,732733(1987)[PerJ.Narvasa,FirstDivision].
116
Peoplev.Cuaresma,254Phil.418,427(1989)[PerJ.Narvasa,FirstDivision].
117
Vergara,Sr.v.Suelto,240Phil.719,732(1987)[PerJ.Narvasa,FirstDivision].
118
Id.
119
CONST.,art.VIII,sec.5,par.(1).
120
Peoplev.Cuaresma,254Phil.418(1989)[PerJ.Narvasa,FirstDivision].
121
Id.at427.
122
Id.
123
Id.
124
G.R.No.205728,January21,2015,747SCRA1[PerJ.Leonen,EnBanc].
125
Id.at43.
126
Id.at4344.
127
Santiagov.Vasquez,291Phil.664,683(1993)[PerJ.Regalado,EnBanc].
128
Id.
129
Id.
130
Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015, 747 SCRA 1, 44
[PerJ.Leonen,EnBanc].
131
614Phil.416(2009)[PerJ.Brion,SecondDivision].
132
Id.at426.
133
Peoplev.Cuaresma,254Phil.418,427(1989)[PerJ.Narvasa,FirstDivision].
134
SpousesChuav.Ang,614Phil.416,426427(2009)[PerJ.Brion,SecondDivision].
135
DioceseofBacolodv.CommissiononElections,G.R.No.205728,January21,2015,747SCRA1,4550
[PerJ.Leonen,EnBanc].
136
425Phil.752(2002)[PerJ.Davide,Jr.,EnBanc].
137
Id.at765766.
138
Rollo,p.33.
139
Id.
140
DonOrestesRomualdezElectricCooperative,Inc.v.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,377Phil.268,
274(1999)[PerJ.Pardo,FirstDivision],citingCarunchoIIIv.CommissiononElections,374Phil.308(1999)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_202781_2017.html 12/13
9/5/2017 G.R. No. 202781
[PerJ.YnaresSantiago,EnBanc].
141
Lopezv.CityofManila,363Phil.68,80(1999)[PerJ.Quisumbing,SecondDivision].
142
Antoniov.Tanco,160Phil.467,474(1975)[PerJ.Aquino,EnBanc],citingCruzv.DelRosario,119Phil.
63(1963)[PerJ.Regala,EnBanc].
143
378Phil.234(1999)[PerJ.Quisumbing,EnBanc].
144
Id.at237238(1999)[PerJ.Quisumbing,EnBanc].SeealsoJardineDaviesInsuranceBrokers,Inc.v.
Aliposa,446Phil.243(2003)[PerJ.Callejo,Sr.,SecondDivision].
145
446Phil.243(2003)[PerJ.Callejo,Sr.,SecondDivision].
146
Id.at253254.
147
396Phil.709(2000)[PerJ.Pardo,FirstDivision].
148
Id.at718719.
149
G.R.No.180235,January20,2016<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2016/january2016/180235.pdf>[PerJ.LeonardoDeCastro,FirstDivision].
150
Id.at10.
151
Rollo,pp.1112.
152
Id.atl0.
153
Id.at23.
154
Rep.ActNo.7160(1991),sec.187.
155
Rep.ActNo.7160(1991),sec.166.
156
Rep.ActNo.7160(1991),sec.195provides:

SECTION195.ProtestofAssessment.Whenthelocaltreasurerorhisdulyauthorizedrepresentative
finds that correct taxes, fees, or charges have not been paid, he shall issue a notice of assessment
stating the nature of the tax, fee, or charge, the amount of deficiency, the surcharges, interests and
penalties.Withinsixty(60)daysfromthereceiptofthenoticeofassessment,thetaxpayermayfilea
written protest with the local treasurer contesting the assessment otherwise, the assessment shall
becomefinalandexecutory.Thelocaltreasurershalldecidetheprotestwithinsixty(60)daysfromthe
timeofitsfiling.Ifthelocaltreasurerfindstheprotesttobewhollyorpartlymeritorious,heshallissuea
notice cancelling wholly or partially the assessment. However, if the local treasurer finds the
assessmenttobewhollyorpartlycorrect,heshalldenytheprotestwhollyorpartlywithnoticetothe
taxpayer.Thetaxpayershallhavethirty(30)daysfromthereceiptofthedenialoftheprotestorfrom
the lapse of the sixty (60)day period prescribed herein within which to appeal with the court of
competentjurisdictionotherwisetheassessmentbecomesconclusiveandunappealable.
157
JardineDaviesInsuranceBrokers,Inc.v.Aliposa,446Phil.243,253(2003)[PerJ.Callejo,Sr.,Second
Division].

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_202781_2017.html 13/13