THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200100. April 23, 2014.]
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF COMPOSTELA VALLEY AND CARMEN R. RAZUL, IN HER CAPACITY AS PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF COMPOSTELA VALLEY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 23, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200100 (National Power Corporation v. The Provincial Government of Compostela Valley and Carmen R. Razul, in her capacity as Provincial Treasurer of Compostela Valley) — On January 29, 2007, petitioner received an Assessment Letter from the Provincial Treasurer of Compostela Valley, demanding the payment of an undetermined amount as franchise tax from 2002 to 2007 for the operation of the Maco Barge 118, situated in Maco, Compostela Valley.
Subsequently, petitioner filed a protest on the ground, inter alia, that upon effectivity of Republic Act No. 9136 1(EPIRA Law), it is no longer considered as a public utility operation for which a franchise is required, making it exempt from payment of franchise tax, pursuant to Section 6 of said law.
The Provincial Treasurer, however, denied petitioner's protest, prompting it to file an appeal before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Nabunturan, Compostela Valley.
In a Decision dated January 29, 2010, the RTC dismissed petitioner's appeal. Thus, petitioner elevated the case to the CTA En Banc. EHTIDA
In a Decision dated July 22, 2011, the CTA En Banc dismissed petitioner's appeal due to lack of jurisdiction. It held that the petition should have been filed with the CTA in Division, because what is being appealed is the decision rendered by the Provincial Treasurer on the protest filed by petitioner under Section 195 of Republic Act No. 7160, 2 otherwise known as the Local Government Code (LGC). Thus, said decision is appealable to the CTA in Division, pursuant to Section 3 (a) (3), Rule 4 of the 2005 Revised Rules of the CTA, as amended.
Unfazed, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution dated January 5, 2012.
Hence, this petition.
Petitioner asserts that its appeal, though inadvertently filed with the CTA En Banc, should be given due course. It maintains that technicality should take a back seat in order to give the parties the fullest opportunity to ventilate their case in court.
The petition is meritorious.
In the case at bar, although the RTC's decision was appealable to the CTA in Division exercising their original jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 3 (a) (3), Rule 4 of the 2005 Revised Rules of the CTA, as amended, 3 nevertheless, the CTA En Banc should not have dismissed the petition outright. Considering that the petition was filed on time, the prudent thing that should have been done by the CTA En Banc was to re-raffle the case to any of its Divisions so that the case would be resolved on its merits.
To be sure, procedural rules are not to be belittled as they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. 4 As correctly argued by the petitioner, technicality should take a back seat in order to give the parties the fullest opportunity to ventilate their case in court to avoid delay and for the ends of justice to be served. EDCTIa
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 22, 2011 and Resolution dated January 5, 2012, of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc in E.B. Case No. 607, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition is REMANDED to the Court of Tax Appeals to be raffled to any of its Divisions for its immediate resolution.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. AN ACT ORDAINING REFORMS IN THE ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN LAWS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
2. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991.
3. SEC. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Division. — The Court in Division shall exercise:
(a) Exclusive original 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;
xxx xxx xxx.
4. Rural Bank of the Seven Lakes (S.P.C.), Inc. v. Dan, 595 Phil. 1061, 1073-1074 (2008).