G.R. No. 213748 - Sy vs. Neat, Inc.

NPC, a government-owned and controlled corporation created under RA No. 6395 (as amended), received a Franchise Tax Assessment Letter from the Provincial Treasurer of Pampanga dated June 24, 2009.
The Assessment Letter invoked provisions of the Provincial Tax Code of 1992 (enacted through Tax Ordinance No. 1) requiring payment of franchise tax based on gross receipts and capital investment, along with an administrative regulatory fee.
The letter failed to indicate crucial details such as the computation of the tax, the exact deficiency, surcharges, interests, penalties, and the period covered by the assessment.

NPC protested the assessment on the ground that under RA No. 9136 (EPIRA Law), its power generation operations had changed, exempting it from needing a franchise for power generation, although it retained the missionary electrification function through its Small Power Utilities Group (SPUG).
In its protest, NPC also argued that the Assessment Letter did not comply with the formal requirements of due process under Section 195 of the Local Government Code (LGC), as it did not clearly state the computation or basis of the alleged deficiency tax.
As a result, NPC elevated the matter by filing an appeal with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) after the Provincial Treasurer failed to act on its protest within the prescribed period.

On July 23, 2013, the RTC rendered a decision declaring NPC liable for the franchise tax, reasoning that a generation company supplying electricity—even if through associated companies like PSALM—was not exempt under EPIRA.
NPC then filed for a petition for review with the CTA.
The CTA Second Division, in its August 1, 2014 Decision, reiterated the Supreme Court’s earlier rulings in National Power Corporation v. City of Cabanatuan and National Power Corp. v. Province of Isabela. It held that NPC could be held liable for franchise tax if it exercised any franchise powers, particularly noting its retention of the missionary electrification function.
The assessment, however, was observed to have defects as the Assessment Letter lacked the necessary details on the amount and the taxable period.
The CTA remanded the case back to the RTC for further proceedings to ascertain details such as whether NPC performed its missionary electrification function in Pampanga and to determine the precise tax due.
NPC’s subsequent motion for reconsideration, adopting arguments regarding due process violations on account of the defective assessment, was denied by the CTA En Banc on September 9, 2016, and again on March 17, 2017.

NPC elevated the case to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, asserting that decisions of the CTA En Banc should be subject to review by the Supreme Court and that the proper procedure was observed under RA No. 9282.
The core of NPC’s contention was that the Assessment Letter was void for failing to provide the details mandated by Section 195 of the LGC, thereby violating its right to due process.
NPC also maintained that its exemption under EPIRA should relieve it from the franchise tax on its power generation and missionary electrification functions.

Whether NPC properly filed its petition for review with the Supreme Court under Rule 45 given that under RA No. 9282 the decisions of the CTA En Banc are appealable directly to the Supreme Court.
The appropriateness of bypassing the Court of Appeals and the effectivity of the petition for review on certiorari.

Whether the Assessment Letter issued by the Provincial Treasurer complied with the due process requirements under Section 195 of the Local Government Code.
Whether the failure to include specific details (tax computation, taxable period, surcharges, interest, and penalties) in the Assessment Letter renders the assessment void and NPC not liable for franchise tax.
Whether NPC, as a generation company with a retained missionary electrification function, should still be responsible for the payment of franchise tax under the modified framework provided by the EPIRA Law.