You are on page 1of 2

Philippine Ports Authority v.

City of Davao

G.R. No. 190324, June 6, 2018

En Banc, Leonen

Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax


Appeals

When a tax case is pending on appeal with the Court of Tax


Appeals, the Court of Tax Appeals has the exclusive jurisdiction
to enjoin the levy of taxes and the auction of a taxpayer's
properties in relation to that case.

PPA (Philippine Ports Authority) received a letter from the City


Assessor of Davao for the assessment and collection of real
property taxes against its administered properties. PPA appealed
the assessment to LBAA (Local Board of Assessment Appeals).
While the case was pending, a notice of sale of delinquent real
properties, including the three properties subject of the case was
issued.

LBAA dismissed PPA’s appeal for having been filed out of time
and for its lack of jurisdiction. PPA appealed before CBAA
(Central Board of Assessment Appeals), but this appeal was
denied. Thus, it filed an appeal with CTA (Court of Tax Appeals).

PPA claimed that it did not receive any warrant of levy for the
three properties or any notice for their auction and that it may
still redeem the properties. Thus, it filed a petition for certiorari
with the CA (Court of Appeals). It argued that it had no other
speedy and adequate remedy except to file a petition for
certiorari with the CA.

While the petition was pending with the CA, CTA promulgated a
decision, granting PPA’s appeal, voiding all tax assessments by
Davao City on aforementioned properties. Thereafter, CA
dismissed the petition holding that CTA had exclusive jurisdiction
to determine the matter and saying that PPA should have applied
for the issuance of writ of injunction before CTA. Hence, CA
upheld the authority of Davao City in taxing PPA’s properties.
Thus, PPA filed a petition for review under before the SC.

Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to issue the


injunctive relief prayed for by PPA?

NO. CA had no jurisdiction to issue the injunctive relief prayed


for by PPA.

As jurisdiction is conferred by law, reference must be made to


the law when determining which court has jurisdiction over a
case, with respect to its factual and procedural antecedents.

Petitioner has failed to cite any law supporting its contention that
CA has jurisdiction over the case., RA No. 1125, as amended by
RA No. 9282, provides that CTA has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over decisions of CBAA in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of
real property originally decided by the provincial or city board of
assessment appeals.

CBAA’s decision being assailed by PPA before the CA was


rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over the real
property tax assessment of its properties. Clearly, this case is
covered by CTA’s exclusive jurisdiction. It is CTA and not CA, that
had the power to preserve the subject of the appeal, to give
effect to its final determination, and to control incidental matters
and to restrain acts which might interfere with its exercise of
jurisdiction.

You might also like