TALENTO V.
ESCALADA
G.R. No. 180884
June 27, 2008
DOCTRINE:
 The question whether the collection of taxes may be suspended by reason of
the filing of an appeal and posting of a surety bond is undoubtedly a pure
question of law which should be appealed to the Supreme Court by petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45, not through the special civil action of
certiorari under Rule 65.—
 An exception to the rule that appeal shall not suspend the collection of realty
taxes is where the taxpayer has shown a clear and unmistakable right to refuse
or to hold in abeyance the payment of taxes
FACTS:
 Petron received from Provincial Assessor a notice of revised assessment over
its machineries and equipment in Bataan
 Based on said revised assessment, petitioner Provincial Treasurer of Bataan
issued a notice for Petron’s deficiency real property tax due from 1994 to 2007
o Petron contested the revised assessment
 According to Petron, the possible valid assessment pursuant
to Section 222 of the LGC could only be for the years 1997 to
2006
 A final notice of delinquent rpt was received by Petron
o the subject properties would be levied and auctioned should Petron
fail to settle
 City Treasurer mentioned that Petron’s payment under protest shall bar the
collection of the realty taxes due
 There was an issuance of a Warrant of Levy
o Consequently, Petron received a notice of sale of its properties
scheduled
o Petron filed a TRO
 RTC granted issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction
 From the said Order of the trial court, petitioner went directly to this Court via
the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
ISSUE: WON the collection of taxes may be suspended by reason of the filing of
appeal and posting a surety bond []
HELD:
 Section 2(c) of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides:
o (c) Appeal by certiorari.—In all cases when only questions of law are raised or
involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45
 Thus, petitioner resorted to the erroneous remedy when she filed a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65
o when the proper mode should have been a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45
 Moreover, under Section 2, Rule 45 he period to file a petition for review is 15
days from notice of the order appealed from
o petitioner’s failure to file an appeal within the reglementary period
rendered the order of the trial court final and executory.
 Even if we assume that a petition under Rule 65 is the proper remedy, the
petition is still dismissible.
o It is settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a sine qua non
condition for the filing of a petition for certiorari.
 Petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration
deprived the trial court of the opportunity to rectify an error
unwittingly committed or to vindicate itself of an act unfairly
imputed
o Petitioner also blatantly disregarded the rule on hierarchy of courts
 Recourse should have been made first with the Court of
Appeals and not directly to the Supreme Court
TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY GRANTED THE PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUCTION
 Section 3, Rule 58, of the Rules of Court
 The requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction are:
(1) the existence of a clear and unmistakable right that must be protected; and
(2) an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage
 The urgency and paramount necessity for the issuance of a writ of injunction
becomes relevant in the instant case
o considering that what is being enjoined is the sale by public auction of
the properties of Petron amounting to at least P1.7 billion
COURT IS NOT UNAWARE OF THE LIFEBLOOD THEORY OF TAXES
 However, there is an exception to the foregoing rule, i.e., where the
taxpayer has shown a clear and unmistakable right to refuse or to hold in
abeyance the payment of taxes.
 In the instant case, we note that respondent contested the revised
assessment on the following grounds:
o the subject assessment pertained to properties That have been
previously declared
o The assessment covered periods of more than 10 years which is
not allowed under the LGC;
o the fair market value or replacement cost used by petitioner
included items which should be properly excluded; that prompt
payment of discounts were not considered in determining the
fair market value
o the subject assessment should take effect a year after or on
January 1, 2008
Petition Dismissed.