United Paracale Mining Co. v. Municipal Assessor of Paracale Camarines Norte

[CBAA CASE NO. L-17-95. December 14, 1998.] UNITED PARACALE MINING COMPANY , petitioner-appellant , vs. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF CAMARINES NORTE , appellee , THE MUNICIPAL ASSESSOR OF PARACALE CAMARINES NORTE , respondent - appellee . RESOLUTION On October 10, 1995, an appeal was filed before this Board by United Paracale Mining Co., Petitioner-Appellant, against the dismissal of its appeal by the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Camarines Norte, for Prescription of Action. Said the Camarines Norte Local Board: "It is the observation and finding of this Board that the petitioner fails to comply with the procedural requirement as laid down by the law. There is no doubt that the Notice of Assessment for the year 1994 were sent to the taxpayer as certified by the mailing office and there is no showing that said Notices as mailed were returned undelivered. Under this situation there exist (sic) a presumption that the taxpayer was notified thereof in view of the presumption of regularity of the transaction by the Postal Office. It is improbable that the petitioner did not received (sic) said Notice of Assessments. "It is the observation and conclusion of this Board that after evaluation and perusal of the records, it is our finding that the statutory requirement has not been substantially complied with, hence, the Board has no alternative but to dismiss the instant appeal. The issue of jurisdictional requirement which is mandatory has been thoroughly discussed and deliberated upon by the members of this Board to determine as to whether or not the appeal was pursued on time which must be established in order for us to lawfully decide on the position. "In view of the prescription of action, it is logical to dismiss the instant petition without any further discussion on the matter advising the petitioner to take proper remedial measure available for them as provided for by law." Errors have been assigned in the case as herein cited, to wit: "I. The Provincial Board erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the same was filed out of time. "II. The Provincial Board erred in not holding that the notice of assessment on petitioner-appellant's mining claims is without legal basis and is therefore invalid and without legal effect. "III. Assuming but not conceding that the notice of assessment is valid, the Provincial Board erred in not holding that the increase in assessment is unjust, excessive and confiscatory." In the present case, prescription of action, as found by the LBAA of Camarines Norte, started to run "in the later (sic) part of January 1994, then the petitioner has only up to the last day of March 1994 to file its appeal." According to Appellee, Local Board, "there is no doubt that the Notices of Assessment for the year 1994 were sent to the taxpayer as certified by the mailing office and there is no showing that said Notices as mailed were returned undelivered"; yet it admits that " there exist a presumption that the taxpayer was notified thereof in view of the presumption of regularity of the transaction by the Postal Office." (Underscoring supplied.) Indeed Appellee, Local Board has not determined by definitive evidence the date of receipt of said Notice of Assessment, but relied on the certification of the Acting Postmaster of Paracale, supra , as the proof that the Notice of Assessment "was delivered to its respective addressee sometime in December 1993." Hence delivery of said appeal was made thereabout. The certification, however, of the Acting Postmaster of Paracale is mere suppositions and presumptions. It could not prove anything. Appellee, Local Board made substantial reference on the "inconsistencies of the Petitioners statement that they came to be aware of the tax increase only on July 6, 1994. The payment made by the Petitioner on June 30, 1994 was a clear indication that the Petitioner was fully aware of the tax and accordingly failed to file the assessment appeal within the reglementary period of prescribed by law." Says the Supreme Court in Javier vs. Court of Appeals , 183 SCRA 178: "Litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on their merits and not on technicalities. x x x. Rules of procedure are intended to promote, not to defeat, substantial justice and, therefore, they should not be applied in a very rigid technical sense." According to the Petitioner-Appellant: "The date of receipt of the 'List of Real Properties' was inadvertently stated in the memorandum submitted by petitioner-appellant to the Provincial Board as July 6, 1994 which was actually the date of receipt of the Notice of Assessment from the Municipal Assessor of Jose Panganiban involving petitioner's real properties in Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte." It appears that Petitioner-Appellant could have been made aware of it on or just before it paid the tax thereon, on June 30, 1994. From June 30, 1994 or thereabout, to August 25, 1994, there could not be more than sixty (60) days between them, hence the Appeal before the LBAA of Camarines Norte could not have prescribed. Appellee Local Board dismissed the present case for prescription of Action without resolving the issues appealed from, on the merits. Contrary thereto, however, this Board finds that no prescriptive period on the appeal have been violated. It is for the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Camarines Norte therefore, to resolve the herein case on the merits. WHEREFORE, the Resolution appealed from in CBAA Case No. L-17-95 (LBAA Case No. 95-02), United Paracale Mining Co., Petitioner-Appellant vs. The Provincial Board of Assessment Appeals of Camarines Norte, Appellee and The Municipal Assessor of Paracale, Camarines Norte, Respondent-Appellee , is hereby set aside and remanded to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of the Province of Camarines Norte for further proceedings on the merits. Furthermore, this Board directs that the Provincial Assessor of Camarines Norte be included as Respondent in this case because without his/her approval, assessments made by Municipal Assessors are ineffective save those in the Municipalities within Metropolitan Manila area as provided in Section 200 of Title Two, Book II of the Local Government Code of 1991. SO ORDERED. Manila, Philippines, December 14, 1998. (SGD.) MARGARITA G. MAGISTRADO Chairman (SGD.) ANGEL P. PALOMARES Member (SGD.) BENJAMIN M. KASALA Member