Team Pacific Corp. v. Daza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Team Pacific Corporation (TPC), engaged in assembling and exporting semiconductor devices, had been paying local business taxes at a one-half (1/2) rate based on Section 75(c) of the Taguig Revenue Code and Section 143(c) of the Local Government Code of 1991. In 2004, the Municipal Treasurer of Taguig assessed TPC's business tax at the full rate, amounting to P208,109.77. TPC paid the assessed tax to renew its business license and subsequently filed a written protest with the Municipal Treasurer, asserting its entitlement to the one-half (1/2) rate. Procedural History: TPC demanded a refund or tax credit for the alleged overpayment. When no formal action was taken on its protest within 60 days, TPC filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Municipal Treasurer. The Municipal Treasurer argued that TPC was not an exporter of essential commodities and thus not entitled to the reduced rate, and that TPC failed to file an ordinary appeal within 30 days from the denial of its protest. The RTC dismissed TPC's petition, ruling that an ordinary appeal, not certiorari, was the proper remedy. The Petition: TPC filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, questioning the RTC's dismissal and arguing that certiorari was the proper remedy and that it should be assessed business taxes at the one-half (1/2) rate.
Issue(s)
Whether TPC availed of the correct remedy by filing a petition for certiorari before the RTC. Whether TPC, as an exporter of semiconductor devices, should be assessed business taxes at the full rate or the one-half (1/2) rate; and the effect of TPC's procedural errors on the finality of the assessment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and for being the wrong mode of appeal. The assessment became final and executory due to TPC's failure to avail of the proper remedy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the proper remedy: The Court held that a Rule 65 petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to question the denial of an assessment protest by a local treasurer. Certiorari is available only when a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The action of a local treasurer in assessing business taxes and acting on protests is not considered a judicial or quasi-judicial function. Section 195 of the Local Government Code clearly provides that a taxpayer dissatisfied with the denial of or inaction on a protest has thirty (30) days within which to appeal to the court of competent jurisdiction. This period is reckoned from the receipt of the denial or the lapse of the 60-day period for the treasurer to decide. Therefore, an ordinary appeal is the appropriate remedy, not certiorari. On the issue of the business tax rate and the effect of procedural errors: The Court found that the RTC's assailed order did not delve on the proper rate of business tax imposable on TPC. However, it noted that TPC's erroneous availment of the wrong mode of appeal from the RTC's order, and its direct resort to the Supreme Court instead of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), rendered the assessment final and executory. The Court emphasized that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. Failure to comply with these requirements is fatal to a party's cause, rendering the judgment final and unappealable. Even if the petition were treated as an appeal, the procedural misstep of filing with the wrong court (Supreme Court instead of CTA, as per RA 9282) further compounded the error, leading to the finality of the assessment.
Main Doctrine
A Rule 65 petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to question the denial of an assessment protest by a local treasurer; an ordinary appeal within the period prescribed by law is the appropriate remedy. Failure to avail of the correct remedy renders the assessment final and executory.