GR 127139; (February, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127139 February 19, 1999
JAIME C. LOPEZ, petitioner, vs. CITY OF MANILA and HON. BENJAMIN A.G. VEGA, Presiding Judge, RTC, Manila, Branch 39, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jaime C. Lopez filed a special proceeding seeking the declaration of nullity of City of Manila Ordinance No. 7894, which prescribed a revised schedule of fair market values for real properties, effective January 1, 1996. The ordinance resulted from a mandated general revision of assessments under the Local Government Code. The City Assessor’s office, after public hearings and publication, submitted a proposed schedule to the City Council, which enacted the ordinance. The implementation led to a 580% increase in the tax on Lopez’s land and a 250% increase on improvements. Subsequently, the City enacted Ordinance No. 7905, which retroactively reduced the assessment levels and capped maximum tax increases, thereby lowering Lopez’s effective increases to 155% for land and 82% for improvements. Despite this amendment, Lopez pursued his case.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court correctly dismissed the petition for declaration of nullity of Ordinance No. 7894 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The Court held that the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies is applicable. Specific legal avenues for questioning real property assessments are provided under the Local Government Code. A taxpayer disputing an assessment must first appeal to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals within sixty days from receipt of the notice of assessment, as per Section 226. Furthermore, Section 252 requires that a protest to the collection of the tax based on the assessment must be preceded by payment under protest to the local treasurer. Lopez’s direct judicial action, without first availing of these administrative recourses, was premature. The Court emphasized that these remedies are plain, speedy, and adequate, and their purpose is to allow administrative bodies to correct their own errors and afford parties swift resolution. The subsequent enactment of Ordinance No. 7905, which mitigated the tax burden, did not negate the requirement to exhaust these remedies, as the core dispute over the validity of the assessment process remained. The trial court, therefore, correctly dismissed the case for lack of cause of action due to petitioner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies.