Green Core Geothermal, Inc. v. Mendez

[CBAA CASE NO. V-37. March 3, 2020.] (LBAA Case No. 2013-001) GREEN CORE GEOTHERMAL, INC. , petitioner-appellant , vs. LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF THE PROVINCE OF NEGROS ORIENTAL , appellee , DANILO MENDEZ, in his capacity as The PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF NEGROS ORIENTAL and ROLANDO OBANIANA, in his capacity as the MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF VALENCIA, NEGROS ORIENTAL , respondents-appellees . RESOLUTION Pending Resolution in the instant case is Respondents-Appellees' Motion for Reconsideration dispositive portion of which states: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the Decision dated 09 December 2019 (sic) be reconsidered and set aside and the Appeal filed by Petitioner-Appellant be dismissed. SO ORDERED." It states that the CBAA erred in holding that: "The Special Education Fund (SEF) is deemed included in the maximum rate of one and a half percent (1.5%) imposed under Section 15 (c) of Republic Act No. 9513, otherwise known as the "Renewable Energy Act of 2008," and consequently ordering Respondents-Appellees to refund the amount of half percent (.5%) excess levy either as actual refund or tax credit." By way of Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration dated 23 January 2020. Petitioner-Appellant claimed that the Honorable Board correctly ruled to wit: HTcADC "This Honorable Board correctly ruled that the preferential realty tax rate of one and a half percent (1.5%) granted to renewable energy developers ("RE Developer"), such as GCGI, under Section 15(c) of Republic Act ("RA") No. 9513, otherwise known as the Renewable Energy Act (the "RE Law"), covers both basic real property tax ("RPT") and special education fund ("SEF"). Petitioner-Appellant (GCGI) further claimed that the Honorable Board did not err: "When it ordered Respondents-Appellees to recompute GCGI's basic RPT and SEF liability to reflect a 1.5% levy and grant GCGI a tax refund or credit in the amount equal to the excess amount paid by GCGI." After a close scrutiny and analysis of parties' pleadings, this Board (CBAA) is of the considered belief that the issue raised by the parties was already tackled/resolved in its Decision dated November 25, 2019. In other words, the grounds of Respondents-Appellees' Motion for Reconsideration is a REHASH which deserves no further evaluation by the BOARD. WHEREFORE , the BOARD finds Respondents-Appellees' Motion for Reconsideration lacking in merit, hence the same is denied due course. CAIHTE The Decision of the Board dated on November 25, 2019 stands. SO ORDERED. Manila, Philippines, March 3, 2020. VACANT Chairperson (SGD.) RAMON A. I. BANTA Member (SGD.) SILVERIO Q. CASTILLO Member Officer-in-Charge