Case Summary (G.R. No. 185420)
Nature of the Case
The case involves a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus filed by LANECO against PGLN, seeking to enjoin the latter from levying and auctioning the cooperative's assets due to unpaid real property taxes. LANECO argues that the actions of PGLN constitute an excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion.
Factual Antecedents
LANECO was granted a franchise in 1972 to distribute electricity in several municipalities in Lanao del Norte and subsequently expanded its coverage in 1995. LANECO finances its operations through loans from the National Electrification Administration (NEA) and received various subsidies for electrification programs. The outstanding loan balance was assumed by the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM) under R.A. No. 9136. Concurrently, PGLN, empowered by the Local Government Code of 1991, enacted a Provincial Revenue Code allowing it to levy taxes on properties.
Demand for Payment and Petitioner’s Actions
PGLN demanded payment from LANECO for real property taxes totaling over P31 million. Despite multiple requests, LANECO claimed it could not obtain a certified copy of the Provincial Revenue Code necessary for assessing the validity of its tax liabilities. Following failed efforts to resolve the tax assessments through the Bureau of Local Government Finance, LANECO filed a petition for declaratory relief, which was dismissed to encourage resolution outside court.
Legal Issues Raised by the Petitioner
LANECO asserts that the PGLN’s attempt to levy its assets contravenes provisions in R.A. No. 9136 which restrict the disposition of assets of electric cooperatives under rehabilitation programs. It contends that the tax demands violate constitutional and statutory rights, citing the need for PGLN to pursue remedies through judicial means rather than administrative levies.
Subsequent Court Filings and Developments
After initiating the case, LANECO filed various motions for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to inhibit PGLN from proceeding with the levy. The Regional Trial Court later issued an injunction, declaring the Provincial Revenue Code invalid, prohibiting further collection of taxes from LANECO.
Respondents’ Counterarguments
PGLN argued LANECO was engaging in forum shopping, highlighting other pending petitions addressing similar issues. They contended that the levy was a lawful administrative remedy recognized under the Local Government Code, and insisted that LANECO failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, consequently violating procedural rules.
Issues for Resolution
The principal legal issues indicate whether LANECO’s petition constitutes forum shopping, if it exhausted all administrative remedies, whether PGLN overstepped its authority through the levy, and if proceeding to auction the cooperative's properties would constitute grave abuse of discretion.
Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court c
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 185420)
Nature of the Case
- The case involves a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
- Lanao del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (LANECO) seeks to enjoin the Provincial Government of Lanao del Norte (PGLN) from levying and auctioning its assets due to unpaid real property taxes.
Factual Antecedents
- LANECO was granted a franchise on January 8, 1972, under Republic Act No. 6038 to distribute electricity in several municipalities.
- The franchise was expanded in December 1995 to include additional barangays.
- To finance operations, LANECO contracted loans from the National Electrification Administration (NEA) from 1972 to 1991, secured by real estate mortgages.
- Congress enacted R.A. No. 7160 (Local Government Code), empowering local government units (LGUs) to impose taxes on real properties.
- LANECO received demands for payment of real property taxes amounting to over P30 million for various municipalities from 1995 to 2005, leading to a final demand in September 2006.
- LANECO sought the original or certified copy of the Provincial Revenue Code to challenge the tax assessments but was allegedly denied.
- After unsuccessful attempts to resolve the issues through the Bureau of Local Government Finance, LANECO filed a petition for declaratory relief in 2006, which was later dismissed.
- Continued demands from PGLN led LANECO to file the present petition in December 2008, questioning the authority of PGLN in collecting taxes.
The Petition
- LANECO does not dispute its tax liabilities but contests the administrative action of levy as an abuse of discretion.
- The petition argues that PGLN's actions violate