|
THE
Supreme Court (SC) affirmed on Wednesday the decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Bataan to issue a writ
of preliminary injunction enjoining the Bataan
provincial government from proceeding with the public
auction of the properties of top oil refiner Petron
Corp., for its failure to pay P1.73 billion in real
property tax due from 1994 up to 2007.
In a
10-page decision penned by Associate Justice Consuelo
Ynares-Santiago, the Court’s Third Division dismissed
the petition for certiorari filed by the Bataan
provincial government through its treasurer, Emerlinda
Talento.
The
Court noted that the Bataan RTC did not err when it
granted Petron’s petition for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction considering the repercussions and
“far-reaching implications” of the sale of the
properties on the operations of the oil firm.
“The
urgency and paramount necessity for the issuance of a
writ of injunction becomes relevant in the instant case,
considering that what is being enjoined is the sale by
public auction of the properties of Petron amounting to
at least P1.7 billion, and which properties are vital to
its business operations,” the SC stressed.
The High
Court noted that Petron’s appeal to hold in abeyance the
payment of the said taxes is based on valid grounds.
In
refusing to pay the tax assessment, Petron argued that
the assessment pertained to properties that have been
previously declared; that the assessment covered periods
of more than 10 years, which is not allowed under the
Local Government Code; that the fair-market value or
replacement cost used by petitioners included items
which should be properly excluded; that prompt payment
of discounts were not considered in determining the
fair-market value; and that the subject assessment
should take effect a year after January 1, 2008.
“To our
mind, the resolution of these issues would have a direct
bearing on the assessment made by petitioner. Hence, it
is necessary that the issues must first be passed upon
before the properties of respondent is sold in public
auction,” the SC said.
Records
showed that Petron received from the provincial
assessor’s office of Bataan a notice of revised
assessment over its machinery and pieces of equipment in
Lamao, Limay, Bataan.
Based on
the assessment, Petron has a delinquency real property
tax in the amount of P1,731,025,403.06 covering the
period of 1994 to 2007.
On
August 22, 2007, Petron received from petitioner a final
notice of delinquent real property tax with a warning
that the subject properties would be levied and
auctioned should Petron fail to pay the tax assessment.
With the
issuance of a warrant of levy against its properties,
Petron filed on September 4, 2007, an urgent motion to
lift the final notice of delinquent real property tax
and warrant of levy with the Local Board of Assessment
Appeals (LBAA).
It
argued that the issuance of the notice and warrant of
levy is premature considering that it has a pending
appeal before the LBAA.
On
October 3, 2007, Petron received a notice of sale of its
properties scheduled on October
17,
2007, prompting it to file a petition before the Bataan
RTC seeking the issuance of a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction.
On
November 5, 2007, the Bataan RTC issued a writ of
preliminary injunction indefinitely suspending the
public auction of Petron’s properties until the final
resolution of its case.
The
Bataan government then elevated the case before the SC
through a petition for certiorari.
The SC,
however, noted that the petition should be dismissed due
to the failure of the petitioner to file it within the
15-day reglamentary period.
It noted
the petitioner received the order of the trial court on
November 6, 2007, thus, she had only up to November 21,
2007, to file the petition.
However,
it took the petitioner until January 4, 2008, or 43
days, to file the petition.
“The
perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the
period prescribed by law is mandatory. Failure to
conform to the rules regarding appeal will render the
judgment final and executory and beyond the power of the
Court’s review,” the SC said.
“Jurisprudence mandates that when a decision becomes
final and executory, it becomes valid and binding upon
the parties and their successors in interest. Such
decision or order can no longer be disturbed or reopened
no matter how erroneous it may have been,” it added.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Ma.
Alicia Austria-Martinez, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Minita
Chico-Nazario and Ruben Reyes. |
