G.R. No. 115253 -74 January 30, 1998
ANTONIO P. CALLANTA, GILBERTO M. DELOS REYES, CESAR Q. CONCON, ALMICAR EDIRA, JACINTO PAHAMTANG, ANTONIO V. ABELLANA, APOLINARIO SALARES, JR. and SHIRLEY PALMERO, petitioners, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and CITY GOVERNMENT OF CEBU, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were officers and staff of the Office of the City Assessor of Cebu. Following a general revision of real property assessments in 1988, they, upon requests of property owners, reduced the newly assessed values of certain real properties. The City Government of Cebu filed administrative charges against them for dishonesty and serious irregularities, alleging the reductions were unauthorized and caused undue injury to the city. Petitioners defended their actions, claiming they were within their official functions under Section 22 of P.D. 464 (The Real Property Tax Code), which allows the assessor to make an appraisal and assessment at any time when requested by the declarant. They also argued that since the city assessor had not yet certified the completion of the general revision to the Secretary of Finance, the taxes under the revised declarations were not yet due and collectible, hence no injury to the city could have occurred. The Office of the Ombudsman found petitioners administratively liable. It dismissed petitioners Callanta, Delos Reyes, and Concon from service and suspended petitioners Edira, Pahamtang, Abellana, Salares, Jr., and Palmero for three months without pay. Their motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioners violated the law by accommodating requests for reconsideration of the revised real property assessments.
2. In the affirmative, whether the violations were injurious/prejudicial to Cebu City.
3. Whether the acts of petitioners constitute grave misconduct and/or negligence warranting their dismissal/suspension from service.

RULING

1. Yes, petitioners violated the law. The Supreme Court held that the city assessor and his subordinates have no authority to reduce the new assessed values upon requests of property owners following a general revision. Section 30 of P.D. 464 provides the exclusive remedy for questioning an assessment: an appeal to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) within 60 days from receipt of the notice. The “reassessments” granted by petitioners were effectively petitions for reappraisal not allowed by law. While Section 22 of P.D. 464 authorizes the assessor to make an appraisal “at any time when requested,” this refers to instances of discovery of property or changes in use, not to the correction of assessments made pursuant to a general revision. Allowing such post-revision adjustments would open opportunities for graft by initially setting unreasonably high values only to lower them upon request.
2. Yes, the violations were prejudicial to Cebu City. The Court ruled that the city government acquired a vested interest in the taxes upon the property owners’ failure to question the assessments before the LBAA within the 60-day period. The approval of the Secretary of Finance is not necessary for the assessments to take effect and for the taxes to accrue. The unauthorized reductions directly diminished the tax base, causing undue injury to the city government by depriving it of revenue lawfully due.
3. Yes, but with modification as to the penalties. The Court found that petitioners Callanta (Officer-in-Charge), Delos Reyes, and Concon (who approved the reductions) committed grave misconduct by knowingly performing acts contrary to law (P.D. 464), amounting to a willful disregard of established rules. Their dismissal from service was upheld. However, the Court found that petitioners Edira, Pahamtang, Abellana, Salares, Jr., and Palmero (who conducted or recommended the adjustments) were guilty only of simple negligence. They acted under the direct orders of their superiors and in accordance with a long-standing office practice they believed was legal. Their penalty was reduced from a three-month suspension to a reprimand, considering their good faith and the fact that their actions were not motivated by corrupt motives.