GR L 10123; (April, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10123 and L-10355; April 26, 1957
GENARO URSAL, as City Assessor of Cebu, petitioner, vs. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and CONSUELO NOEL, respondents. (and a companion case with JESUSA SAMSON)
FACTS
Genaro Ursal, as City Assessor of Cebu, assessed certain real properties of Consuelo Noel and Jesusa Samson for taxation. The taxpayers protested, and the Cebu Board of Assessment Appeals reduced the assessments. The City Assessor appealed these rulings to the Court of Tax Appeals, insisting on his original valuation. The Court of Tax Appeals dismissed his appeals, holding that the appeal was late and, more fundamentally, that the City Assessor had no legal personality to bring the appeal under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125 , as the Board’s rulings did not “adversely affect” him.
ISSUE
Whether the City Assessor of Cebu has the legal personality or right to appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals from a decision of the provincial or city Board of Assessment Appeals that reduces his tax assessment.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal order of the Court of Tax Appeals. The Court held that the City Assessor lacked the personality to resort to the Court of Tax Appeals. The rulings of the Board of Assessment Appeals did not “adversely affect” him within the meaning of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125 . At most, it was the City of Cebu that could have been adversely affected by the reduced tax collection. The overruling of his opinion inflicted no material damage upon him or his office, and the Court of Tax Appeals was not created to decide mere conflicts of opinion between administrative officers. The jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals is limited to the matters expressly enumerated in Republic Act No. 1125 . The Court noted that while Commonwealth Act No. 530 had explicitly authorized a city assessor to appeal to the former Central Board of Tax Appeals, Republic Act No. 1125 , which created the Court of Tax Appeals, did not reenact such permission. The omission was deemed intentional, considering the Court of Tax Appeals’s role as part of the judicial system to act on protests of adversely affected private persons, and to maintain discipline and command responsibility within the executive branch. The principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies. Having resolved the issue of personality, the Court found it unnecessary to review the timeliness of the appeal.