Jose v. Tigerway Facilities and Resources, Inc.

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1605. July 25, 2018.] (C.T.A. AC No. 127) HON. LOURDES R. JOSE, in her capacity as City Treasurer of City of Caloocan , petitioner , vs . TIGERWAY FACILITIES AND RESOURCES, INC. , respondent . DECISION CASANOVA , J p : This is an appeal, by way of Petition for Review, 1 filed by petitioner-Lourdes R. Jose, City Treasurer of City of Caloocan, seeking to nullify and set aside the Decision 2 dated September 27, 2016 (the "Assailed Decision") and Resolution 3 dated February 13, 2017 (the "Assailed Resolution"), both rendered by the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)-Third Division in CTA AC No. 127. The facts 4 of the case, as found by the CTA-Third Division and narrated in the Assailed Decision, are as follows: "Petitioner was the City Treasurer of Caloocan at the time of filing of the complaint with the RTC. Respondent Tigerway Facilities and Resources, Inc., on the other hand, is a domestic corporation, with main office at 433 R. Pascual Street, Mandaluyong City. On January 21, 2005, the Caloocan City Business Permits and Licensing Office (BPLO) issued an Order of Payment directing respondent to pay business tax and fees in the amount of P219,429.80. On January 25, 2005, respondent paid the assessed amount leading to the issuance in its favor of a Mayor's Permit for the said year for its factory located in Caloocan. Subsequently, BPLO issued a Final Demand to respondent demanding payment of deficiency business tax of P1,220,720.00 for the year 2005, on account of the alleged ocular inspection conducted on its business establishment on May 27, 2005. BPLO subsequently issued to respondent a Notice of Deficiency dated July 15, 2005 reiterating its demand for payment of business tax deficiency of P1,220,720.00. This was followed by the Last and Final Demand dated December 2, 2005 and Order of Payment dated December 8, 2005 for the same amount citing as ground another ocular inspection of respondent's business establishment on June 10, 2005. The amount of the alleged business tax deficiency was later reduced to P500,000.00 as indicated in the Order of Payment dated December 29, 2005, which respondent paid on the same date. On December 27, 2007, respondent filed a written claim for refund or credit with petitioner on the ground that the additional assessments against it had no factual or legal basis. Respondent further alleged that its own review revealed that the deficiency due from it should be P234,234.79 instead of the P219,429.80 which it paid on January 25, 2005. However, since respondent already paid P219,429.80 on January 25, 2005 and P500,000.00 on December 29, 2005 for a total of P719,429.80, it is entitled to a refund in the amount of P485,195.01 (P719,429.80-P234,234.79). On December 28, 2007, respondent filed a Complaint for Refund or Credit of Local Tax and Fees with the RTC, Mandaluyong pursuant to Section 196 of the Local Government Code (LGC), praying among others, for the refund or credit of the amount of P485,195.01 alleged to have been erroneously paid to petitioner.' In the assailed Decision dated July 8, 2014, the RTC Mandaluyong City ordered the refund or credit to respondent of the amount of P485,195.01, in the following fashion: 'WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant complaint is GRANTED. The defendant Treasurer of the City of Caloocan (petitioner herein) is hereby ORDERED to: A. Refund or credit to plaintiff (respondent herein) the amount Four Hundred Eighty Five Thousand One Hundred Ninety Five Pesos and 1/100 (Php485,195.01), plus interest at the legal rate at 6% per annum from the time of payment to defendant on 29 December 2005 until actual refund or credit has been made; B. Defendant's counterclaim is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.' The RTC affirmed its ruling when it denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration in the similarly assailed Order of December 3, 2014. On March 6, 2015 or within the extended period granted, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review." On September 27, 2016, the CTA-Third Division promulgated the Assailed Decision which denied, for lack of merit, the Petition for Review filed by Lourdes R. Jose, in her capacity as City Treasurer of the City of Caloocan. ATICcS Petitioner, thus, filed, on October 28, 2016, thru registered mail, her Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 27 September 2016), 5 seeking to reverse the Assailed Decision dated September 27, 2016. In a Resolution 6 dated February 13, 2017, the CTA-Third Division denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. On March 21, 2017, petitioner filed, thru registered mail, the instant Petition for Review with the Court En Banc . Respondent failed to file its Comment despite notice, 7 thus the case was deemed submitted for resolution on July 18, 2017 per Resolution 8 of even date. Hence, the instant Decision. In the Petition for Review now before Us, petitioner lays down the following grounds 9 for the allowance of the Petition, to wit: " IV. GROUNDS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE PETITION 'I. THE HONORABLE THIRD DIVISION ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER'S NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT IS VOID FOR WANT OF FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS. II. THE HONORABLE THIRD DIVISION ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT HAS LONG BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (LGC). III. THE HONORABLE THIRD DIVISION ERRED IN RULING THAT RESPONDENT CAN AVAIL OF THE REMEDY IN SECTION 196 OF LGC. IV. THE HONORABLE THIRD DIVISION ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE COURT A QUO HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT OF THE SUIT." Petitioner contends that Section 195 of the Local Government Code (LGC) does not require that the factual and legal bases of the assessment must be specified in the Notice of Assessment, and, to rule otherwise is to add a requirement not provided under the law. Section 195 of the LGC only requires that the details on the nature of taxes, fees or charges and the amount of deficiency must be stated in the Notice of Deficiency and those details were all stated in the Notice dated July 15, 2005 issued to the respondent; that, while not so indicated therein, the Notice of Deficiency is issued with factual and legal bases. Petitioner, likewise, asseverates that for respondent's failure to file a timely protest within sixty (60) days from receipt of the notice, the said assessment became final and executory, immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified by any tribunal or court. Finally, citing the cases of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Philippine National Bank 10 and Jardine Davies Insurance Brokers, Inc. vs. Hon. Erna Aliposa, et al. , 11 petitioner posits that respondent cannot avail of the remedy under Section 196 of the LGC since what is being challenged by respondent is not the statutory or legal basis of the fees, charges or taxes imposed but the factual basis of assessment of local business tax, fees and charges or the mathematical computation thereof; that the remedies under Sections 195 and 196 of the LGC are mutually exclusive and are not alternative or even cumulative. After a careful and thorough evaluation and consideration of petitioner's arguments as well as the records of the case, the Court En Banc finds no merit in the instant Petition for Review. The subject Notices of Assessment failed to state the factual and legal bases of the assessment It bears noting that the State's power to tax is limited by the Constitution. 12 Thus, such power must be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the constitutional mandate that no person shall be deprived of his or her property without due process of law. 13 Consequently, it is necessary that the taxpayer must be informed of the factual and legal bases of assessment similar to that of Section 228 14 of the National Internal Revenue Code and, following the ruling of Supreme Court in Luz R. Yamane, in her capacity as the City Treasurer of Makati City vs. BA Lepanto Condominium Corporation , 15 which explicitly provides: "Ostensibly, the notice of assessment, which stands as the first instance the taxpayer is officially made aware of the pending tax liability, should be sufficiently informative to apprise the taxpayer the legal basis of the tax. This holds true even in cases of additional assessment like in the instant case. Upon review of the records, it appears that nowhere in the Notice of Deficiency 16 dated July 15, 2005, Last and Final Demand 17 dated December 2, 2005, Order of Payment 18 dated December 8, 2005 and Order of Payment 19 dated December 29, 2005 would one find any legal basis for such additional assessment other than the mere allegation that petitioner conducted two ocular inspections on respondent's business establishment on May 27, 2005 20 and June 10, 2005, 21 respectively. In fact, no other evidence was presented by petitioner with regard to the alleged inspection conducted on May 27, 2005, other than a copy of undated Final Demand 22 stating that an inspection was conducted on the said date and, as a result thereof, respondent was assessed of business tax in the amount of P1,220,720.00. Petitioner, likewise, failed to explain in detail, in any of those documents, how each and every figure in the attached computation was arrived at. The Court En Banc further notes certain inconsistencies in the testimony of petitioner's witness, Mr. Nestor Caas, Officer-in-Charge of the Business Permit and Licensing Office of Caloocan City Mayor's Office, who was part of the group (composed of Teresita Crudo, Corazon Arcadio, Adelina Cano, Gloria Sibal, Charmaine Rabago and himself) 23 who conducted a tax mapping and inspection on respondent's business establishment on June 10, 2005. 24 During the course of his direct examination on August 24, 2012, Mr. Caas testified that his group, roamed "around to the whole area of the (respondent's) business establishment" 25 and discovered the alleged misrepresentations/misdeclaration of facts made by respondent in its application for business permit, which caused petitioner to increase respondent's business taxes, fees and charges for table year 2005. 26 However, upon cross-examination by respondent's counsel on May 31, 2013, Mr. Caas admitted that it only took them fifteen (15) minutes to inspect respondent's facilities since they merely interviewed three personnel of respondents i.e. , (i) "person in-charge of the laundry services"; (ii) "person in-charge of Tigerway; and, (iii) one employee working at the laundry services. 27 When asked to provide the names of the said personnel, he could only recall the name "Olive", 28 who, according to him, was then the head of personnel and the person-in charge of Tigerway. 29 But, on re-direct examination conducted on August 23, 2013, he was able to provide the complete name of the person allegedly "in-charge of Tigerway," whom he claimed was "Ms. Oliva Orgel" (should be Urgel), 30 to wit: "Atty. Sansaet: Mr. Witness, how well do you know this Ms. Oliva Orgel? Witness: Because when we conducted Tax Mapping Operation on that area, she introduced herself to us, she is Ms. Oliva Orgel, the Head of H.R. of Tigerway Facilities. Atty. Sansaet: And that, during your inspection in the premises of Tigerway Facilities that was the first time that you saw Ms. Oliva Orgel, right? Witness: Yes. Atty. Sansaet: Did she show you any I.D.? Witness: Yes, she showed us . Because she was here and I'm with it. . . . Atty. Sansaet: And its indicated there. . . .? Witness: Oliva Orgel Atty. Sansaet: During your testimony on May 31, 2013, you forgot any, is that what happened? Witness: Yes, I forgot her name because we conducted inspection in 2005 and we only . . . your question about the name Ms. Oliva Orgel, the H.R. Head, which I got recall." Atty. Sansaet: Do you remember if she has an I.D. and she showed you the I.D., is that correct Witness: She not showed us the I.D. but she wears the I.D. Atty. Sansaet: So, you did not read what is in the I.D.? Witness: I know that her name is Oliva Orgel . xxx xxx xxx Atty. Sansaet: You also mentioned before that, you also able to interview the over-all In-charge of Tigerway Facilities? Witness: No, the one that I'm referring to is only Olive Orgel only, because she is the one entertaining us, during that time. Atty. Sansaet: So, when you said before . . . you testified before, that you talked to the over-all In-Charge in Tigerway Facilities, you are actually referring to the H.R. Manager, Oliva Orgel, is that correct? Witness: Yes, sir. 31 In the same hearing, petitioner's counsel, Atty. Venancio Manuel III, manifested that Ms. Oliva Lorenzo Urgel has testified as witness for the respondent. 32 Upon review of the testimony of Ms. Oliva Lorenzo Urgel, this Court notes that no less than petitioner's very own counsel, Atty. Ma. Filipina Aguilar, was able to duly establish in the hearing held on March 19, 2010, that Ms. Urgel was not yet an employee of respondent in 2005, the year when the alleged inspection was conducted. Thus, it is highly improbable that she had been interviewed by Mr. Caas on June 10, 2005, the day his group conducted the subject ocular inspection. For ready reference, the Court En Banc quotes hereunder the cross-examination conducted by Atty. Aguilar on respondent's sole witness, Ms. Oliva Urgel: "ATTY. AGUILAR: Madam witness, for the record, you have stated in your direct testimony that you have been employed with your company on November 2006? WITNESS: Yes. ATTY. AGUILAR: And the subject matter of this case is the assessment made by the City Government in the year 2005 wherein you were not yet an employee of the company? WITNESS: Yes. ATTY. AGUILAR: Am I correct to say, Madam witness, that the basis of your testimony all depends on the available records of the company and not on your own personal knowledge? WITNESS: Yes, through available documents." 33 Thus, this Court could not give probative value to the testimony of Mr. Caas, as well as to the alleged result of the ocular inspection. The Court En Banc, likewise, reiterates with approval, the following findings of the Court in Division, to wit: "Further, on use of respondent's business floor area as basis for the additional assessment, petitioner presented three (3) Inspection Slips, two of which were dated June 10, 2005 and the other, February 7, 2008. A hard look on the said documents divulged conflicting facts. The Inspection Slip dated February 7, 2008 indicated 7,550 (6,000 + 1,500 + 50) square meters while the two Inspections Slips dated June 10, 2005 each indicated 1,000 square meters. Significantly, the three documents as well failed to state the law and the facts upon which the assessment was based. In addition, the three Inspection Slips do not explain how the said floor area was used in the computation of the subject assessment. The same is true with regard the other documents presented by petitioner. It is also worth to note that these documents failed to show proof of their receipt by respondent." 34 The Court in Division did not err in ruling that respondent can avail of the remedy in Section 196 of LGC A taxpayer assessed by the local treasurer for deficiency taxes, fees or charges has generally two (2) remedies to question the local treasurer's assessment, protest such assessment under Section 195 of the LGC or pay the tax under protest and, thereafter, file a claim for refund under Section 196 of the LGC. 35 Sections 195 and 196 are quoted as follows: "SEC. 195. Protest of Assessment . When the local treasurer or his duly authorized representative finds that correct taxes, fees, or charges have not been paid, he shall issue a notice of assessment stating the nature of the tax, fee, or charge, the amount of deficiency, the surcharges, interests and penalties. Within sixty (60) days from the receipt of the notice of assessment, the taxpayer may file a written protest with the local treasurer contesting the assessment; otherwise, the assessment shall become final and executory. The local treasurer shall decide the protest within sixty (60) days from the time of its filing. If the local treasurer finds the protest to be wholly or partly meritorious, he shall issue a notice cancelling wholly or partially the assessment. However, if the local treasurer finds the assessment to be wholly or partly correct, he shall deny the protest wholly or partly with notice to the taxpayer. The taxpayer shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of the denial of the protest or from the lapse of the sixty (60)-day period prescribed herein within which to appeal with the court of competent jurisdiction otherwise the assessment becomes conclusive and unappealable. SEC. 196. Claim for Refund of Tax Credit. No case or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any tax, fee, or charge erroneously or illegally collected until a written claim for refund or credit has been filed with the local treasurer. No case or proceeding shall be entertained in any court after the expiration of two (2) years from the date of the payment of such tax, fee, or charge, or from the date the taxpayer is entitled to a refund or credit." In the case of City of Manila and City Treasurer of the City of Manila vs. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation , 36 the First Division of this Court categorically stated that the taxpayer is free to choose which remedy to enforce. In relation thereto, the Court En Banc explained, in the case of International Container Terminal Services, Inc. vs. City of Manila , 37 that these two (2) separate and diverse remedies call for different requirements and conditions for their application. Considering so, a taxpayer should be clear on the basis of its action, after all, it is the averments of the complaint that determine the nature of the action, as well as the jurisdiction of the courts. Thus, the complaint must contain a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action and specify the relief sought. 38 Applying the foregoing, the Court En Banc is in unison with the Court in Division in applying the provision of Section 196 of the LGC, instead of Section 195 of the LGC, in resolving the case at bench. The title of the Complaint 39 itself, filed by respondent before the Regional Trial Court readily shows that the latter opted to file a claim for refund or tax credit of local tax and fees. TIADCc Moreover, petitioner herself admitted in her Answer 40 that respondent "never filed a written protest and it was only on 27 December 2007" that the latter filed its claim for refund. Considering further that there is no requirement under Section 196 to first file a protest before filing a claim for refund, the claim of petitioner that the subject assessment had long become and executory on account of non-filing of protest has, therefore, no leg to stand on. The Court shall now ascertain if respondent has sufficiently complied with the requisites for refund under Section 196 of the LGC. Respondent complied with the requisites of a claim for refund of local business tax under Section 196 of the LGC; Both RTC and CTA have properly acquired jurisdiction over the instant case Under Section 196 of the LGC, in order to be entitled to a refund/credit of local taxes, the following procedural requirements must concur: first, the taxpayer concerned must file a written claim for refund/credit with the local treasurer; and second, the case or proceeding for refund has to be filed within two (2) years from the date of the payment of the tax, fee, or charge or from the date the taxpayer is entitled to a refund or credit. 41 Bearing in mind the foregoing requirements, the Court En Banc agrees with the following findings of the Court in Division that the respondent complied with the requisites laid down by Section 196 of the LGC, to wit: "Evidence show that BPLO issued the subject assessment on December 29, 2005, ordering respondent to pay the reduced amount of P500,000.00 which respondent paid on the same date. On December 27, 2007, respondent filed a written claim for refund or credit anchored on the absence or lack of factual or legal basis for the additional assessment. On December 28, 2007, respondent filed a Complaint for Refund or Credit of Local Tax and Fees with the RTC, which is obviously within two (2) years from the date of the payment of the tax on December 29, 2005. Clearly, the two (2) procedural requisites under Section 196 of the LGC had been complied with." In other words, respondent's judicial claim for refund was seasonably filed (within the 2-year prescriptive period) with the RTC on December 28, 2007. Thus, the court a quo properly acquired jurisdiction over respondent's claim. In relation thereto, Section 7 (a) (3) of RA No. 1125, as amended by RA No. 9282, provides: "SEC. 7. Jurisdiction. The CTA shall exercise: (a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided: xxx xxx xxx (3) Decisions, order or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction;' Section 3 (a) (3) of Rule 4 and Section 3 (a) of Rule 8 of the 2005 Revised Rules of the CTA (RRCTA), respectively, state: "RULE 4 JURISDICTION OF THE COURT xxx xxx xxx SEC. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Division . The Court in Division shall exercise: (a) Exclusive original over or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: xxx xxx xxx (3) Decisions, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original jurisdiction;" "RULE 8 PROCEDURE IN CIVIL CASES xxx xxx xxx SEC. 3. Who may appeal; period to file petition . (a) A party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or claims for refund of internal revenue taxes, or by a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, or a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may appeal to the Court by petition for review filed within thirty days after receipt of a copy of such decision or ruling , or expiration of the period fixed by law for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the disputed assessments. In case of inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on claims for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the taxpayer must file a petition for review within the two-year period prescribed by law from payment or collection of the taxes." (Emphasis supplied) Based thereon, an appeal from the resolutions or orders of the RTC in local tax cases decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original jurisdiction may be made by filing a Petition for Review before the CTA within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy of the decision or ruling. Here, petitioner received a copy of the RTC's Decision on October 27, 2014. She filed a Motion for Reconsideration on November 11, 2014, which was denied in an Order promulgated on December 3, 2014, copy of the said Order was received by petitioner on January 6, 2015. Thus, petitioner had until February 5, 2015 within which to appeal the same, via Petition for Review, with the CTA. 42 However, on February 5, 2015, petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, 43 praying that it be granted an additional period of fifteen (15) days from February 5, 2015, or until February 20, 2015, within which to prepare and file the Petition. The same was granted in a Resolution 44 dated February 16, 2015. A Second Motion for Extension to File Petition for Review was filed by petitioner on February 20, 2015, praying, again, for an additional period of fifteen (15) days from February 20, 2015, or until March 7, 2015, within which to finalize and file her Petition. In the interest of justice and equity, the same was granted by the Court in its Resolution 45 dated March 5, 2015. Thus, petitioner's Petition for Review 46 with the Court in Division was timely filed on March 6, 2015. Consequently, the CTA has jurisdiction to entertain the instant Petition. Lastly, the instant case is analogous to City Treasurer of Manila vs. Philippine Beverage Partners, Inc ., 47 in which the Second Division of this Court ruled thus: "Perusal of the records reveals that private respondent complied with both requirements. It paid the local business tax and regulatory fees in the amount of P2,930,239.82 as evidenced by Official Receipt No. BAI-008505 23 on February 13, 2007. Then, on March 2, 2007, private respondent submitted a written claim for refund or tax credit in the amount of P2,424,158.93. Counting two (2) years from the date of payment, it had until February 13, 2009 to file a claim for refund before a competent court. Thus, private respondent timely filed its Complaint for the revision of statement of account (Preliminary Assessment) and for refund or credit of local business tax erroneously/illegally collected before the RTC of Manila, Branch 47, on March 8, 2007. By such reasons, the claim that private respondent should have appealed the denial of its protest pursuant to Section 195 of the LGC, instead of claiming for refund or tax credit under Section 196 of the LGC, has no leg to stand on." The foregoing ruling was affirmed by the Court En Banc in its Decision 48 promulgated on December 22, 2016. Petitioner's reliance on the cases of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Philippine National Bank and Jardine Davies Insurance Brokers, Inc. vs. Hon. Erna Aliposa, et al. in supporting her Petition is misplaced. Petitioner, citing the cases of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Philippine National Bank 49 ("PNB Case") and Jardine Davies Insurance Brokers, Inc. vs. Hon. Erna Aliposa, et al. , 50 ("Jardine Case") posits that respondent cannot avail of the remedy under Section 196 of the LGC since what is being challenged by respondent is not the statutory or legal basis of the fees, charges or taxes imposed but the factual basis of assessment of local business tax, fees and charges or the mathematical computation thereof. This Court is not convinced. Both cases are not on all fours with the present case as shown below: In the PNB Case , PNB requested the Bureau of Internal Revenue to issue a tax credit certificate (TCC) on the remaining balance of the advance income tax payment it made in 1991. However, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) ruled that the claim in question is time-barred, the bank having filed such claim only in 1997, or more than two (2) years from 1992, when the overpayment of annual income tax for 1991 was realized by the bank and the amount of excess payment ascertained with the filing of its final 1991 income tax return. Thus, the core issue in such case is the applicability of the two (2)-year prescriptive period in Section 230 51 of the NIRC. On the basis of equity and fairness, the Supreme Court did not subject PNB's request for the issuance of a tax credit certificate to the two (2)-year prescriptive period stated in Section 230 of the NIRC. In the Jardine Case , petitioner was assessed and billed by the respondents for taxes, fees and charges under Municipal Ordinance No. 922-072 for the second, third, and fourth quarters of 1993. Petitioner paid its quarterly business taxes without protest. On January 30, 1994, petitioner requested respondent Makati to compute its business tax liabilities in accordance with the Metro Manila Revenue Code and not under the said Ordinance, considering that the said Ordinance was already declared by the Department of Justice null and void. Petitioner asked that the amount it overpaid be credited/refunded. When respondent Makati denied the said request, petitioner filed a complaint with RTC of Makati, which subsequently dismissed the complaint on ground of prescription, as petitioner failed to file an opposition or protest within 60 days from the notice of assessment. Thus, the issue is whether petitioner should first file a protest with respondents before instituting its action for a refund of its overpayments or for it to be credited for said overpayments. The Supreme Court ruled that Jardine was proscribed from filing its complaint with the RTC of Makati for the reason that it failed to appeal to the Secretary of Justice within thirty (30) days from the effectivity date of the ordinance as mandated by Section 187 of the Local Government Code. AIDSTE Whereas in the case at bench, when respondent sought to renew its Caloocan City Mayor's Permit for the year 2005, the Caloocan City BPLO issued an Order of Payment 52 dated January 21, 2005, assessing it of business tax and fees in the amount of P219,429.80. Notwithstanding the prompt payment of the aforesaid tax and fees, 53 which led to the issuance of the said Mayor's Permit, 54 petitioner was still required to pay additional fees and charges in the amount of P1,220,720.00 as shown the following documents: Notice of Deficiency 55 dated July 15, 2005, Last and Final Demand 56 dated December 2, 2005 and Order of Payment 57 dated December 8, 2005. Another Order of Payment 58 dated December 29, 2005 was issued by petitioner demanding the payment of the amount of P500,000.00, which was paid by respondent on December 29, 2005. Thus, the main issues in the present case are as follows: whether the additional fees and charges imposed against respondent are valid; and, whether the remedy invoked by respondent under Section 196 of the LGC is available to it, exclusive of the remedy under Section 195 of the LGC. Thus, petitioner's reliance on the doctrine enunciated in the PNB and Jardine Cases cannot be applied in the instant case. In sum, the Court En Banc finds no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the Court in Division. WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban and Catherine T. Manahan, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. En Banc Rollo , pp. 11-37. 2. Division Docket, pp. 120-132. 3. Ibid ., pp. 161-164. 4. Id. , pp. 120-123. 5. Id. , pp. 136-153. 6. En Banc Rollo , pp. 57-60. 7. Per Records Verification dated July 3, 2017, Ibid ., p. 72. 8. Id ., pp. 74-75. 9. IV. Grounds for the Allowance of the Petition, Petition for Review, Id ., pp. 17-18. 10. G.R. No. 161997, October 25, 2005. 11. G.R. No. 118900, February 23, 2007. 12. Chamber of Real Estate and Builders' Association, Inc. v. Romulo , 628 Phil. 508, 529-530 (2010) [Per J. Corona, En Banc]. 13. Art. III, Section 1 subparagraph 1, Constitution. 14. Section 228. Protesting of Assessment. x x x xxx xxx xxx The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void. 15. G.R. No. 154993, October 25, 2005. 16. Exhibit "N". 17. Exhibit "O". 18. Exhibit "G". 19. Exhibit "H". 20. Exhibit "M". 21. See Footnote No. 17. 22. See Footnote No. 20. 23. Page 45, TSN dated May 31, 2013. 24. Page 17, TSN dated August 24, 2012. 25. Page 37, TSN dated August 24, 2012. 26. Page 64, TSN dated August 24, 2012. 27. Page 40, TSN dated May 31, 2013. 28. Pages 60-61, TSN dated May 31, 2013. 29. Pages 14, and 61, TSN dated May 31, 2013. 30. Page 14, TSN dated August 23, 2013. 31. Pages 25-36, TSN dated August 23, 2013. 32. Page 16, TSN dated August 23, 2013. 33. Pages 5-6, TSN dated March 19, 2010. 34. September 27, 2016 Decision, Division Docket, p. 130. 35. Recalde, The Philippine Local Tax and the Tariff and Customs Laws, 2011, p. 201. 36. CTA AC No. 148, January 27, 2017. 37. CTA EB case No. 277 (CTA AC No. 11), September 5, 2008. 38. Estate of Jacob vs. Court of Appeals , G.R. Nos. 120435 and 120974, December 22, 1997. 39. Complaint For Refund or Credit of Local Tax and Fees, RTC Records, pp. 1-8. 40. Par. 26, Answer, RTC Records, p. 60. 41. Metro Manila Shopping Mecca Corp. vs. Toledo , G.R. No. 190818, June 5, 2013. 42. Pars. 1 and 2, Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, Division Docket, p. 11. 43. Division Docket, pp. 11-14. 44. Division Docket, p. 16. 45. Division Docket, p. 22. 46. Division Docket, pp. 23-35. 47. CTA AC No. 122, May 8, 2015. 48. City Treasurer of Manila vs. Philippine Beverage Partners, Inc. , CTA EB No. 1342. 49. G.R. No. 161997, October 25, 2005. 50. G.R. No. 118900, February 23, 2007 (should be G.R. No. 118900, February 27, 2003). 51. Now Sec. 229. 52. Exhibit "F". 53. RTC Docket, p. 332. 54. Exhibit "L". 55. Exhibit "2". 56. Exhibit "O". 57. Exhibit "G". 58. Exhibit "H".