Case Digest (G.R. No. 247331)
Facts:
Hon. Lourdes R. Jose, in Her Capacity as City Treasurer of City of Caloocan, Petitioner, vs. Tigerway Facilities and Resources, Inc., Respondent, G.R. No. 247331, February 26, 2024, Supreme Court Second Division, Lopez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner is the City Treasurer of Caloocan City; respondent is Tigerway Facilities and Resources, Inc. In 2005 Tigerway applied for renewal of its mayor’s permit. The Caloocan City Business Permit and Licensing Office (BPLO) issued an Order of Payment on January 21, 2005 assessing PHP 219,429.80, which Tigerway paid and upon which a permit was issued. Thereafter the BPLO issued a Final Demand and a sequence of notices (including a Notice of Deficiency dated July 15, 2005, a Last and Final Demand dated December 2, 2005, and Orders of Payment dated December 8 and December 29, 2005) claiming additional deficiency business taxes totaling initially PHP 1,220,720.00 but later reduced to PHP 500,000.00, which Tigerway paid on December 29, 2005.
On December 27, 2007 Tigerway submitted a written claim for refund or credit to the City Treasurer asserting that its true tax liability for 2005 was PHP 234,234.79 and that it had therefore overpaid, and on December 28, 2007 it filed a Complaint for Refund or Credit of Local Tax and Fees before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) under Section 196 of the Local Government Code (LGC), seeking PHP 485,195.01 as refund. The City Treasurer countered that Tigerway had lost the right to contest the assessment for failing to file a written protest within 60 days under Section 195 of the LGC, rendering the assessment final and precluding refund claims.
The RTC granted Tigerway’s complaint and ordered refund of PHP 485,195.01 plus legal interest at 6% per annum from December 29, 2005 until actual refund; it denied the Treasurer’s counterclaim. The RTC denied the Treasurer’s motion for reconsideration. The Treasurer filed a petition for review to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). The CTA Third Division denied the Treasurer’s petition, finding defects and inconsistencies in the City’s inspection slips and other documents and concluding the notices lacked factual and legal basis and thus were void; it also held Tigerway properly pursued the remedy under Section 196 within two years of payment. The CTA Third Division denied reconsideration.
The CTA En Banc likewise denied the Treasurer’s petition, holding the July–December 2005 notices did not state the factual and legal bases for the assessment, that the City’s witness had inconsistent testimony, and that Tigerway had validly invoked Section 196 and complied with its pro...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Section 195 or Section 196 of the Local Government Code govern Tigerway’s remedy—i.e., were the City’s notices valid assessments that triggered Section 195, or were they void so that Section 196 applied?
- If Section 196 applies, was Tigerway’s written claim and judicial action timely and sufficient to entitle it to a refund of PHP 485,195.01?
- Was the RTC’s award of lega...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)