Talento v. Petron
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petron Corporation (Petron) received a notice of revised assessment for its machineries and equipment in Bataan, with a total liability of P1,731,025,403.06 for deficiency real property tax from 1994 to 2007. Petron appealed the assessment to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA), contesting the validity of the assessment period and the valuation. Petron also sought approval of a surety bond amounting to P1,286,057,899.54. Procedural History: Despite Petron's appeal and posting of a surety bond, the Provincial Treasurer of Bataan issued a final notice of delinquent real property tax and a warrant of levy. Petron filed an urgent motion to lift the notice and warrant with the LBAA, which was later withdrawn when Petron received a notice of sale of its properties. Petron then filed a petition for prohibition with a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and preliminary injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Petition: The RTC issued a TRO, which was later elevated to a writ of preliminary injunction upon Petron posting an additional bond. The Provincial Treasurer, Emerlinda S. Talento, filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC's order granting the preliminary injunction.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy, including the timeliness of the appeal, the requirement of a motion for reconsideration, and the observance of the hierarchy of courts. Whether the filing of an appeal and posting of a surety bond suspends the collection of real property taxes, considering the exception to the rule on suspension of tax collection. Whether the RTC erred in granting the writ of preliminary injunction.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the Provincial Treasurer resorted to the wrong remedy by filing a petition for certiorari instead of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, and that the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period. Furthermore, no motion for reconsideration was filed with the RTC, and the hierarchy of courts was disregarded. However, the Court found that the RTC correctly granted the writ of preliminary injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy and timeliness of the appeal; Motion for Reconsideration; Hierarchy of Courts: The Court held that the issue presented was a pure question of law, which should have been brought to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The petition under Rule 65 was filed 43 days late, rendering the RTC order final and executory. A Rule 65 petition cannot be used to substitute for a lost ordinary appeal due to the petitioner's own neglect or error. The Court emphasized that the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory, and failure to do so renders the judgment final and beyond review. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC's order before filing the petition for certiorari. This failure deprived the RTC of an opportunity to correct any perceived error. A motion for reconsideration is generally considered a sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari, as it provides the lower court a chance to rectify its mistakes. This procedural lapse further supports the dismissal of the petition. The petitioner also disregarded the rule on the hierarchy of courts by filing the petition directly with the Supreme Court, instead of first filing it with the Court of Appeals, which has concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari. While courts have concurrent jurisdiction, petitioners must still observe the prescribed procedural order. This failure to follow the proper court hierarchy is another ground for dismissing the petition. On the exception to the rule on suspension of tax collection: The Court reiterated that while appeals do not suspend the collection of taxes, an exception exists when the taxpayer shows a clear and unmistakable right to refuse or hold in abeyance payment. Petron's grounds for contesting the assessment, such as the assessment pertaining to previously declared properties, exceeding the 10-year limit, improper valuation, and failure to consider discounts, directly impacted the assessment's validity. The posting of a surety bond equivalent to the assessed amount, as allowed by the LBAA Rules and R.A. 9282, further supported the necessity of suspending collection pending resolution of the appeal. On the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction: Despite the procedural infirmities, the Court found that the RTC correctly granted the writ of preliminary injunction. The requisites for such an injunction are the existence of a clear and unmistakable right to be protected and an urgent necessity to prevent serious damage. Petron demonstrated a clear right to contest the assessment, and the potential sale of its properties worth over P1.7 billion would cause serious damage and render any judgment ineffectual. The Court acknowledged the 'lifeblood' doctrine of taxes but noted an exception where the taxpayer shows a clear right to hold payment in abeyance, which Petron did by raising substantial issues regarding the assessment's validity and by posting a substantial surety bond.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal under Rule 45, especially when the loss is due to the petitioner's own neglect or error. Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration is generally a prerequisite for filing a petition for certiorari, and failure to observe the hierarchy of courts is also a ground for dismissal.