G.R. No. 175723, February 4, 2014
THE CITY OF MANILA
ETC., ET AL. v. HON. CARIDAD H. GRECIA-CUERDO ETC., ET AL
PERALTA, J.:
NATURE:
This is
a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the Resolutions1 dated
April 6, 2006 and November 29, 2006 of the Court of Appeals.
FACTS:
Petitioner City of Manila, through its treasurer, petitioner
Liberty Toledo, assessed taxes for the taxable period from January to December
2002 against the private respondents.In addition to the taxes purportedly due
from private respondents pursuant to Section 14, 15, 16, 17 of the Revised
Revenue Code of Manila (RRCM), said assessment covered the local
business taxes. private respondents were constrained to pay the P 19,316,458.77
assessment under protest.
On January 24, 2004, private respondents filed before the RTC of Pasay City the complaint denominated as one for “Refund or Recovery of Illegally and/or Erroneously–Collected Local Business Tax, Prohibition with Prayer to Issue TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction
On January 24, 2004, private respondents filed before the RTC of Pasay City the complaint denominated as one for “Refund or Recovery of Illegally and/or Erroneously–Collected Local Business Tax, Prohibition with Prayer to Issue TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction
The
RTC granted private respondents’ application for a writ of preliminary
injunction.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration4 but the RTC denied. Petitioners then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA but the CA dismissed petitioners’ petition for certiorari holding that it has no jurisdiction over the said petition. The CA ruled that since appellate jurisdiction over private respondents’ complaint for tax refund, which was filed with the RTC, is vested in the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), pursuant to its expanded jurisdiction under Republic Act No. 9282 (RA 9282), it follows that a petition for certiorari seeking nullification of an interlocutory order issued in the said case should, likewise, be filed with the CTA.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,7 but the CA denied it in its Resolution hence, this petition
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the CTA has jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari assailing
an interlocutory order issued by the RTC in a local tax case.
HELD:
The CTA has jurisdiction over a special civil
action for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order issued by the RTC in a
local tax case. In
order for any appellate court to effectively exercise its appellate
jurisdiction, it must have the authority to issue, among others, a writ of
certiorari. In transferring exclusive jurisdiction over appealed tax cases to
the CTA, it can reasonably be assumed that the law intended to transfer also
such power as is deemed necessary, if not indispensable, in aid of such
appellate jurisdiction. There is no perceivable reason why the transfer should
only be considered as partial, not total.
Consistent with the above pronouncement, the
Court has held as early as the case of J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v.
Jaramillo, et al. [118 Phil. 1022 (1963)] that “if a case may be appealed to a
particular court or judicial tribunal or body, then said court or judicial
tribunal or body has jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writ of
certiorari, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.” This principle was affirmed
in De Jesus v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 101630, August 24, 1992) where the
Court stated that “a court may issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction if said court has jurisdiction to review, by appeal or
writ of error, the final orders or decisions of the lower court.
FALLO: petition is denied
No comments:
Post a Comment