Marcopper Mining Corp. v. Provincial Assessor of Marinduque

[CBAA CASE NO. L-18-96. July 27, 2000.] TD No. 05-35697 MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION , petitioner-appellant , vs. THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF THE PROVINCE OF MARINDUQUE , appellee , THE PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF MARINDUQUE AND THE MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF STA. CRUZ, MARINDUQUE , respondents-appellees . RESOLUTION This is a "PETITION/MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION" filed by Petitioner-Appellant, Marcopper Mining Corporation, on this Board's dismissal of its appeal for lack of merit. Petitioner-Appellant's grounds are as follows: "I THE HONORABLE CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR LACK OF MERIT "II THE HONORABLE CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT APPELLANT'S SILTATION DAM AND DECANT SYSTEM ARE EXEMPT FROM REAL PROPERTY TAX" Petitioner-Appellant prays "that the Decision of this Honorable Board, dated December 21, 1998, be partially reconsidered and a decision be rendered: "a) declaring that petitioner-appellant's siltation dam exempt (sic) from real property tax under Section 234(e) of the Local Government Code of 1991 "b) directing the Provincial Assessor of Marinduque to classify petitioner-appellant's siltation dam as tax exempt and thereafter remove the same from the assessment roll; and "c) ordering the refund to or give petitioner-appellant tax credit for all realty tax payments made under protest for the siltation dam subject of this suit." Petitioner-Appellant adduced that this Board "has effectively admitted that the siltation dam is used for pollution control and environmental protection" when this Board stated that "the siltation dam is 'apparently out of commission and not apt to its function as would control pollution and protect the environment,' and thus it 'betrayed the purpose for which it was created.' Petitioner-Appellant further declared: "What is worse and astonishing, the Honorable Board cited barangay resolutions which are totally irrelevant to the issue of the siltation dam's nature as non-taxable property." Verily, this Board has said nothing about whether the Siltation Dam was for Pollution Control or not. Clearly what this Board said was whether the Siltation Dam attained the purpose of its being its use for Pollution Control and Environmental Protection, as defined in Section 234 (e) of R.A. 7160. Petitioner-Appellant would want this Board to desist from determining "whether or not its property has achieved its purpose" as it "is not for this Board to decide nor for it to tackle in this case," as this Board's function "only concerns the correctness of assessing real property taxes on Petitioner-appellant's property." Petitioner-Appellant, would insist that the purpose is served because the Siltation Dam is for Pollution Control and Environmental Protection. Petitioner-Appellant would disregard the word "used" in the law, i.e. , " used for pollution control and environmental protection," (Sec. 234 (e), R.A. 7160, supra , underscoring supplied). Petitioner-Appellant would dwell on the Dam's nature and become insensitive to the fact that the Dam collapsed and damaged the environment it was mandated to protect. Petitioner-Appellant would want this Board to close its eyes and ears to reality and see and hear nothing about the clamor of the Barangays of the Municipality of Mogpog, Marinduque in their Resolutions, 95-01 and 96-01, calling for the removal of said Siltation Dam. The plaint manifested in the Resolutions meant nothing to Petitioner-Appellant. "alisin ang itinayong Siltation Dam sa madaling panahon upang and mamamayan ng Mogpog as matahimik na and kalooban, x x x." In the above-declaration not the sentiment, nay the outcry of a distressed people wanting to appease their apprehension to the harm that befell them and the danger still lurking, in the wake of the Siltation Dam's undoing? That "Petitioner-appellant in fact filed a Manifestation/Objection, x x x, objecting to the submission of said documents because not only were they submitted for the first time on appeal, they were unsigned and should have been considered as mere scraps of paper!" So that "for the Honorable Board to cite these alleged barangay resolutions only reveals the gravity of its error in issuing the now assailed decision." Petitioner-Appellant's attention is invited to the provision of Sec. 230, R.A. 7160, Last Sentence, Third Paragraph. "The Hearing Officer shall try and receive evidences on the appealed assessment cases as may be directed by the Board." That the Resolutions were unsigned is quite inaccurate: Resolution 95-01, the first of the two Resolutions is fully attested and summarily signed. Notably though, Resolutions 95-01 and 96-01 are substantially identical. As can be gleaned, Sec. 234 (e), R.A. 7160, provides for the concurrence of at least two (2) attributes for a system to be considered as being for Pollution Control and Environmental Protection: (1) Machinery and (2) Usability. There is no denying: The Siltation Dam was made for Pollution Control and Environmental Protection. However, did the Siltation Dam perform effectively-efficiently, as to warrant its usability? As regards the other matters raised by Petitioner-Appellant, particularly its contention that the Siltation Dam is Machinery and covered also by the exemptions under Sec. 3 of R.A. 7942, we found them to have been already exhaustively dealt with in our Decision. The instant PETITION/MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION did not present any new argument that would warrant a modification or reversal of the Decision in question. WHEREFORE, finding no sufficient justification or cogent reason to disturb our earlier Decision, the PETITION/MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION, is hereby denied for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Manila, Philippines, July 27, 2000. (SGD.) CESAR S. GUTIERREZ Chairman Abstained ANGEL P. PALOMARES Member (SGD.) RAFAEL O. CORTES Member