G.R. No. 213157 - National Grid Corp. of the Philippines vs. Oliva

The dispute involves the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) and the City Treasurer of Cebu City (Ofelia M. Oliva in her official capacity) as well as OIC Cuevas, with issues arising from the payment and assessment of real property taxes.
Two petitions for review were filed:

G.R. No. 213157 – NGCP filed a petition for review against decisions rendered by the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc (CTA-EB) which dismissed NGCP’s appeal from earlier assessments.
G.R. No. 213558 – OIC Cuevas filed a petition for review against NGCP challenging the refund order rendered by the CTA-EB.

On September 24, 2009, NGCP received three Final Notices of Demand from the Office of the City Treasurer of Cebu City addressed to NPC/TRANSCO concerning tax declaration nos. COO-019-05574, COO-019-05581, and COO-019-05580.
The notices concerned commercial buildings for various assessment periods spanning from 2001 to 2009 with a total demand amounting to P2,792,862.41.
NGCP, acting under protest pursuant to Section 252 of the Local Government Code, paid the total amount demanded on November 11, 2009 and concurrently filed a written protest at the office; although the protest document was dated October 6, 2009.

NGCP sent its appeal by registered mail to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) on March 11, 2010.
Due to issues with the mailing system and address insufficiencies, delays arose; however, NGCP argued the petition was filed in time.
The City Assessor and the City Attorney of Cebu City subsequently filed comments and oppositions, leading the LBAA to dismiss NGCP’s petition on technical grounds (i.e., being filed out-of-time).

NGCP filed a notice of appeal with the CBAA, which reviewed the factual submissions and technical issues regarding the timeliness and legal personality of NGCP.
The CBAA reaffirmed NGCP’s legal interest, noted that the LBAA dismissal was based on a technicality and not the merits, and ruled that NGCP was liable for real property taxes for the year 2009 only.
The CBAA further declared that NGCP should claim a refund from NPC/TRANSCO for taxes paid for the years 2001 to 2008, emphasizing that the subject properties were declared in the name of NPC/TRANSCO.

NGCP filed a motion for partial reconsideration with the CBAA, pleading for an exemption or reclassification of the properties under its franchise as provided in RA 9511.
The CTA-EB reversed and set aside the CBAA decision regarding the tax liabilities by holding NGCP liable only for real property taxes incurred in 2009, reducing the overall tax liability, and ordering a refund of P2,454,389.74.
A concurring and dissenting opinion by Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario and an accompanying concurrence by Associate Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban highlighted dissent over the interpretation of the “in lieu of all taxes” clause in RA 9511.

Detailed breakdowns of the assessed taxes as reflected in the three sets of Notices of Demand showed amounts due for various years (2001–2009) including tax due, interest, discounts, and total amounts.
All parties concurred that NGCP had, under protest, paid the assessed real property taxes for the years 2001 to 2009.

The essential factual controversy revolved around whether the subject properties were used in connection with NGCP’s franchise and whether they should be classified as special properties under Sections 216 and 218(d) of the Local Government Code.

Additionally, the proper computation of the tax liability and the consequent refund due to NGCP, arising from its payment of taxes on behalf of NPC/TRANSCO, formed a central part of the factual matrix.

Whether NGCP, under its franchise granted by Republic Act No. 9511 and subject to the “in lieu of all taxes” clause, is exempt from the payment of local real property taxes on the subject properties.
Whether the subject properties are classified as a “special class” of real property under Section 216 of the Local Government Code, which could influence the assessment level applicable (i.e., capped at 10% under Section 218[d]).

Whether the petition before the LBAA was timely filed, despite issues with registered mail and address difficulties.
Whether NGCP had the requisite legal personality and standing to institute the appeal before the local and central boards of assessment.

Whether the correct amount of real property taxes was assessed, collected, and paid by NGCP.
Whether the excess tax payment should be refunded by the City Treasurer of Cebu City, and if so, how the refund should be computed based on the actual use or non-use of the properties in connection with NGCP’s franchise.