DOJ Opinion No. 056, s. 1990

DOJ OPINION NO. 056 , s. 1990 April 6, 1990 The Administrator Philippine Coconut Authority Don Mariano Marcos Avenue Diliman, Quezon City Sir : This refers to your request for opinion on whether or not the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA), a government agency created under Presidential Decree No. 1466, as amended, is subject to the payment of real property tax. You state that your query stemmed from the demand made by the Municipal Treasurer of Palo, Leyte to the PCA for the payment of its alleged tax delinquency, excluding the penalties, on its building situated in said municipality. You claim exemption from payment of real property tax on the strength of Section 40 of the Real Property Tax Code (P.D. No. 464, as amended), in relation to Executive Order No. 93 (Withdrawing all Tax and Duty Incentives). This Department is constrained to decline rendition of opinion on your query since it involves a determination of the tax-exempt status of PCA which is a matter that properly pertains to the Department of Finance, a co-equal and coordinate department, over which this Office has no revisory authority (see Sec. 102 of P.D. 464 and Title II, Chapter I, Sec. 2 of Executive Order No. 292, Administrative Code of the Philippines). the Secretary of Justice does not take cognizance of matters over which another office or agency has primary jurisdiction unless requested by the head of such agency or office (see Secretary of Justice Ops. No. 123, s. 1980, s. 199, s. 1975; Nos. 181 and 194, s. 1976; and No. 67, s. 1979). The accompanying document reveals that the Executive Director of the National Tax Research Center, Department of Finance, has already ruled that the aforementioned Section 40 of P.D. No. 464 grants an exemption from real property tax only to any government-owned or controlled corporation so exempt by its charter ; and that the charter of the PCA grants no such exemption. Accordingly, it is believed that the matter should be resolved by the aforesaid Department. LexLib Furthermore, well-settled is the rule that contemporaneous interpretation of a statute by the agency tasked with its implementation and enforcement is entitled to great respect and deference (Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs, 29 SCRA 617; Pascual v. Director of Lands, 10 SCRA 854; Grapilon v. Municipal Council of Carigara, 2 SCRA 103; Regalado v. Yulo, 61 Phil. 173). Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) FRANKLIN M. DRILON Secretary