View full case

CE CASECNAN WATER v. PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA

FACTS:

This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by CE Casecnan Water and Energy Company, Inc. (petitioner) against the Province of Nueva Ecija, the Office of the Provincial Assessor of Nueva Ecija, and the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Nueva Ecija (respondents). The dispute arose from a build-operate-transfer (BOT) contract entered into by petitioner and the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) known as the "Amended and Restated Casecnan Project Agreement." The contract pertains to the construction and development of the Casecnan Multi-Purpose Irrigation and Power Project, which is a combined irrigation and hydroelectric power generation facility using the Pantabangan Dam in Nueva Ecija.

On September 6, 2005, petitioner received a Notice of Assessment of Real Property from the Office of the Provincial Assessor indicating that it owed real property taxes (RPT) amounting to P248,676,349.60 for the years 2002 to 2005. Petitioner appealed the assessment with the Nueva Ecija Local Board of Assessment Appeals (Nueva Ecija LBAA), but it was dismissed. Petitioner then appealed to the Nueva Ecija Central Board of Assessment Appeals (Nueva Ecija CBAA), but during the pendency of the appeal, respondents collected the RPT due. Petitioner paid under protest and initiated proceedings to challenge the validity of the collection.

Subsequently, petitioner received a letter from the Office of the Provincial Treasurer stating that it had RPT arrears amounting to P1,277,474,342.10. Petitioner questioned this assessment through an appeal before the Nueva Ecija LBAA. However, while the appeal was pending, respondents sent a letter demanding payment for the alleged RPT arrearages.

In response to these actions, petitioner filed a Complaint for injunction and damages with application for temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose City, Nueva Ecija. Petitioner sought to restrain the collection of the RPT. The RTC initially denied petitioner's application for a TRO but later issued a TRO enjoining respondents from collecting the RPT. However, the RTC denied petitioner's application for a writ of preliminary injunction, prompting petitioner to file a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking to annul the RTC's orders.

The CA dismissed the Petition for lack of jurisdiction, stating that jurisdiction over the case lies within the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) as the issue of the validity of the assessment and collection of RPT must be resolved. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA. Undeterred, petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA, not the CTA, has jurisdiction over the case. Respondents contended that the CA needs to pass upon the propriety of the assessment of RPT, which falls within the jurisdiction of the CTA.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) 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.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) has jurisdiction over the Petition for Certiorari filed by the petitioner.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the CTA has exclusive jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order issued by the RTC in a local tax case. The CA ruled that since the issue of the validity of the assessment and the collection of real property tax (RPT) against the petitioner must be resolved in determining whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the application for a writ of preliminary injunction, jurisdiction over the case lies within the CTA.

  2. No, the CA does not have jurisdiction over the Petition for Certiorari filed by the petitioner. The CA dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for lack of jurisdiction, stating that the issue of the validity of the assessment and the collection of RPT against the petitioner falls within the jurisdiction of the CTA.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) 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.

  • The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals (CA) in a Petition for Certiorari depends on the nature of the case and the issues raised. The CA does not have jurisdiction if the case involves the validity of assessment and collection of local taxes, which falls within the jurisdiction of the CTA.