G.R. No. 213207 - Republic vs. Pasig Rizal Co., Inc.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 213207)

Key Dates

Taxable period assessed: January–December 2002
Payment under protest: 2002 assessment paid in 2003
Complaint filed in RTC: January 24, 2004 (amended February 16, 2004)
RTC preliminary injunction granted: July 9, 2004; reconsideration denied October 15, 2004
CA resolutions dismissing certiorari petition: April 6, 2006; November 29, 2006
RTC decision on merits (granting refund): August 13, 2007; final and executory October 20, 2008
Writ of execution issued: November 25, 2009
Supreme Court decision: February 4, 2014

Applicable Law

1987 Constitution (post-1990 decision)
Rule 65 (special civil action for certiorari) and Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari), Rules of Court
Revised Revenue Code of Manila (RRCM) Sections 14–21
Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code), Section 143(h) on double taxation
Republic Act No. 1125 (1964), as amended by Republic Act No. 9282 (2004), defining CTA jurisdiction
Rule 135, Section 6, Rules of Court (auxiliary writs in aid of jurisdiction)

Factual Background

The City of Manila assessed local business taxes under RRCM Sections 14–17 and Section 21 for several retail corporations covering 2002. Facing revocation of business permits, respondents paid ₱19,316,458.77 under protest and filed suit in the RTC for refund or credit of illegally and erroneously collected taxes, plus prohibition with prayer for TRO and preliminary injunction. The RTC granted a preliminary injunction; the City’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The City then sought certiorari relief in the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) had exclusive appellate jurisdiction over local tax refund cases pursuant to RA 9282.

Issues Presented

Whether the CA gravely erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the RTC abused its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction under RRCM Section 21.
Whether respondents failed to comply with the written-claim requirement for refunds.
Whether the City’s role as tax-collecting agent precluded injunctive relief.
Whether injunctive relief would cause greater damage to the City.

Supreme Court’s Disposition

The petition was denied as moot and academic, but the Court addressed the jurisdictional question for guidance. The Supreme Court treated the Rule 65 certiorari petition as a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari—appropriate here because the CA resolutions were final and dismissals of petition for certiorari must be appealed, not subjected to a new Rule 65 action.

Holding on Jurisdiction

The CTA, under RA 1125 as amended by RA 9282 and the 1987 Constitution, has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions, orders, or resolutions of the RTC in local tax cases.
Although RA 1125/9282 do not expressly mention certiorari powers, the CTA possesses inherent and constitutionally mandated authority to issue auxiliary writs—including certiorari—in aid of its appellate jurisdiction (1987 Constitution, Art. VIII; Rule 135, Sec. 6).
Precedent (J.M. Tuason & Co. v. Jaramillo; De Jesus v. CA; Galang v. Geronimo; Bulilis v. Nuez) supports that any court with appellate jurisdiction may issue certiorari to preserve or protect that jurisdiction.
Allowing split jurisdiction between the CA and the CTA over interlocutory orders in local tax cases would undermine the coherent administration of justice.

Rationale

A final CA dismissal of a certiorari petition must be appealed via Rule 45, not challenged anew un

Case Summary (G.R. No. 213207)

Key Dates

Applicable Law

Factual Background

Issues Presented

Supreme Court’s Disposition

Holding on Jurisdiction

Rationale

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 213207)

Nature of the Case

Factual Background

Procedural History