Ce Casecnan Water and Energy Company, Inc., vs. Province of Nueva Ecija
Ce Casecnan Water and Energy Company, Inc., vs. Province of Nueva Ecija
*
CE CASECNAN WATER and ENERGY COMPANY, INC.,
petitioner, vs. THE PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA, THE
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF NUEVA
ECIJA, and THE OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL
TREASURER OF NUEVA ECIJA, as represented by HON.
AURELIO UMALI, HON. FLORANTE FAJARDO and
HON. EDILBERTO PANCHO, respectively, or their lawful
successors, respondents.
NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION and
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, as necessary parties.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
181
ruled that the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) likewise has the
jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari or to determine whether
there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
in issuing an interlocutory order in cases falling within the CTA’s
exclusive appellate jurisdiction.—In the recent case of City of
Manila v. Grecia-Cuerdo, 715 SCRA 182 (2014), the Court ruled
that the CTA likewise has the jurisdiction to issue writs of
certiorari or to determine whether there has been grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
of the RTC in issuing an interlocutory order in cases falling
within the CTA’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction.
Same; Same; Same; Same; It is settled that it is the Court of
Tax Appeals (CTA) which has exclusive jurisdiction over a special
civil action for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order issued by
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in a local tax case.—It is settled
that it is the CTA which has exclusive jurisdiction over a special
civil action for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order issued by
the RTC in a local tax case.
Interlocutory Orders; Certiorari; Local Taxation; Court of Tax
Appeals; Jurisdiction; A certiorari petition questioning an
interlocutory order issued in a local tax case falls under the
jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).—No doubt, the
injunction case before the RTC is a local tax case. And as earlier
discussed, a certiorari petition questioning an interlocutory order
issued in a local tax case falls under the jurisdiction of the CTA.
Thus, the CA correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari before
it for lack of jurisdiction.
182
_______________
183
_______________
184
peal before the Nueva Ecija LBAA. While the same was
pending, petitioner received from respondents a letter
dated September 10, 2008 demanding payment for its
alleged RPT arrearages.
Hence, on September 23, 2008, petitioner filed with the
RTC of San Jose City, Nueva Ecija a Complaint9 for
injunction and damages with application for temporary
restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction10
praying to restrain the collection of the 2008 RPT
Reassessment. Petitioner emphasized, among others, that
it was not the one which should pay the taxes but NIA.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On September 24, 2008, the RTC denied petitioner’s
application for a 72-hour TRO.11
Meanwhile, petitioner received from the Office of the
Provincial Treasurer a letter dated September 22, 2008
further demanding payment for RPT covering the third
quarter of 2008 (2008-3Q Assessment). Thus, petitioner
filed on September 29, 2008 an Amended Complaint12
asking the RTC to likewise enjoin respondents from
collecting RPT based on the 2008-3Q Assessment in the
amount of P53,346,755.18.
On October 2, 2008, the RTC issued a 20-day TRO13 en-
joining respondents from collecting from petitioner the RPT
covered by the 2008 RPT Reassessment amounting to
P1,279,997,722.70, including surcharges and penalties.
Subsequently, however, the RTC denied petitioner’s
application for writ of preliminary injunction in its Order14
of Octo-
_______________
185
Petitioner sought reconsideration; however, it was
denied in a Resolution19 dated March 24, 2011.
Undaunted, petitioner filed this Petition imputing upon
the CA grave error in:
_______________
186
Petitioner’s Arguments
In its Petition21 and Reply,22 petitioner argues that it is
the CA, not the CTA, which has jurisdiction over the
subject matter of its Petition for Certiorari. Petitioner
maintains that its petition relates to an ordinary civil
action for injunction and not to a local tax case. It insists
that in both the RTC injunction case and the Petition for
Certiorari before the CA, petitioner was not protesting
respondents’ assessment of RPT against it; what it was
seeking was respondents’ enjoinment from committing or
continuing to commit acts that would probably violate its
right. In particular, petitioner points out that the RTC
injunction case was intended to enjoin respondents from
collecting payment during the pendency of the case with
the LBAA challenging the validity of the 2008 RPT
Reassessment. Petitioner explains that the said injunction
case was filed with the RTC because the LBAA has no
injunctive power.
Respondents’ Arguments
In their Comment,23 respondents argue that in resolving
the issue on the propriety of issuing a writ of injunction,
the CA will have to inevitably pass upon the propriety of
the assessment of RPT on the Casecnan Project, a local tax
matter which is within the jurisdiction of the CTA.
Respondents also echo the CA pronouncement that
petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies with
respect to the assessment and collection of RPT.
_______________
20 Rollo, p. 70.
21 Id., at pp. 64-97.
22 Id., at pp. 795-805.
23 Id., at pp. 769-774.
187
Our Ruling
There is no merit in the Petition.
It is the CTA which has the power to rule on a
Petition for Certiorari assailing an interlocutory
order of the RTC relating to a local tax case.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is required for a
court to act on any controversy. It is conferred by law and
not by the consent or waiver upon a court. As such, if a
court lacks jurisdiction over an action, it cannot decide the
case on the merits and must dismiss it.24
With respect to the CTA, its jurisdiction was expanded
and its rank elevated to that of a collegiate court with
special jurisdiction by virtue of Republic Act No. 9282.25
This expanded jurisdiction of the CTA includes its
exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the
decisions, orders or resolutions of the RTC in local tax
cases originally decided or resolved by the RTC in the
exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction.26
In the recent case of City of Manila v. Grecia-Cuerdo,27
the Court ruled that the CTA likewise has the jurisdiction
to issue writs of certiorari or to determine whether there
has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of
_______________
188
Further, the Court in City of Manila, citing J. M.
Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Jaramillo,29 De Jesus v. Court of
Appeals,30 as well as the more recent cases of Galang, Jr. v.
Hon. Judge Geronimo31 and Bulilis v. Nuez,32 held that:
_______________
28 Id., at p. 202.
29 118 Phil. 1022; 9 SCRA 189 (1963).
30 G.R. No. 101630, August 24, 1992, 212 SCRA 823.
31 659 Phil. 65; 643 SCRA 631 (2011).
32 670 Phil. 665; 655 SCRA 241 (2011).
189
Anent petitioner’s contention that it is the CA which has
jurisdiction over a certiorari petition assailing an
interlocutory order issued by the RTC in a local tax case,
the Court had this to say:
_______________
Given these, it is settled that it is the CTA which has
exclusive jurisdiction over a special civil action for
certiorari assailing an interlocutory order issued by the
RTC in a local tax case.
The RTC injunction case is a local tax case.
In maintaining that it is the CA that has jurisdiction
over petitioner’s certiorari petition, the latter argues that
the in-
_______________
191
_______________
192
_______________