349 Phil. 584
PANGANIBAN, J.:
“It is alleged that a general revision of assessment was conducted by the Office of the City Assessor in 1988 and sometime thereafter. Notices of assessment together with the new tax declarations were subsequently sent to the property owners. Thereafter, respondents, without the authority of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals, reassessed the values of certain properties, in contravention of Sec. 30 of P.D. 464. The said assessment resulted in the reduction of assessed values of the properties x x x.In several similarly worded letter-complaints dated December 19, 1991, the City of Cebu simultaneously filed criminal and administrative charges against the above-enumerated officers and staff of the City Assessor’s Office for “violations of Section 106 of the Real Property Tax Code[,] for gross negligence or willful under-assessment of real properties within the city’s taxing jurisdiction and for violation of Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act[,] for the act of causing undue injury to the City Government by giving private persons unwarranted benefits, advantages or preferences in the discharge of their official and administrative functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence by reassessing the real properties of taxpayers without any authority whatsoever, thereby resulting in the reduction of tax assessments to the prejudice of the city government x x x.” Specifically, the administrative charges were for “dishonesty and/or serious irregularities in the performance of duties/public functions.” The deputy ombudsman summarized the defenses of petitioners in this wise:
x x x x x x x x x
The extent of participation of the individual respondents in the adjustments [reductions] referred to above, could be summarized as follows, to wit:
- Antonio P. Callanta
approved and ordered the adjustments of the revised assessments reducing both the market and assessed values of real properties under Tax Declaration Nos. x x x.- Ma. Almicar Edera [, Jacinto Pahamtang, Segundino Lucero, Antonio V. Abellana, Nicolas Abarri and Apolinario Salares, Jr.]
- conducted the adjustments of the revised assessments reducing both the market and assessed values of real properties under Tax Declaration Nos. x x x.- Gilberto delos Reyes [and Cesar Q. Concon]
- approved for and in behalf of the City Assessor the adjustments of the revised assessments reducing both the market and assessed values of real properties under Tax Declaration Nos. x x x.x x x x x x x x x
- Shirley Palmero
- recommended the approval of the adjustment of the revised assessment reducing both the market and assessed value of real property under Tax Declaration No. GR-04-028-05093 and conducted similar aforesaid adjustments on real properties under Tax Declaration Nos. x x x.”[5]
“Respondents [herein petitioners], in their joint counter-affidavit, denied the charges filed against them. They explained that the acts complained of were done within the bounds of their official duties and functions, citing as their legal basis, Sec. 22 of P.D. 464. That Sec. 30 of P.D. 464 which is the basis of the complaints does not prohibit the Assessor from either correcting from whatever error or flaw he and his deputies may have made.The deputy ombudsman, ruling purely on the administrative aspect of the cases, held in the assailed amended Resolution that while the city assessor had not yet submitted a certification to the secretary of finance stating that the general revision of property assessments has been completed, “thus forestalling the effectivity of [the] assessments and the accrual of taxes thereunder,” the city government of Cebu already acquired a vested interest on the taxes by reason of the property owners’ failure to question the same to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) within sixty (60) days from receipt of their notices of assessment, as provided under Sec. 30[7] of PD 464, as amended. He opined that approval by the secretary of finance is not necessary for the assessments to take effect, and the taxes thereunder to accrue and become payable. In addition, even if no law expressly prohibits the local assessor or his authorized deputies from making corrections or adjustments in assessments, the unrestricted exercise of such authority in all stages of the appraisal and assessment process “would open the floodgates to corruption.” Besides, the questioned assessments were done pursuant to the general revision; hence, requests for readjustment are effectively petitions for reappraisal and reassessment which are not allowed under the law. Section 30 of PD 464, as amended, provides the remedy for questioning assessments of real properties and the “reassessments” requested by the property owners and granted by the assessor is not included therein. The deputy ombudsman thus concluded that the unauthorized and improper corrections/adjustments made by petitioners resulting in decreased fair market values of the real properties involved adversely affected the city government. Such acts allegedly constituted willful or gross negligence amounting to intentional violation and gross disregard of Sec. 106[8] of PD 464, as amended.
Respondents further alleged that they have not derived any benefit from the adjustments nor caused injury to any party particularly the City Government of Cebu. They explained that the general revision of real property assessments for the City of Cebu has not been completed nor has the City Assessor certified its completion to the Secretary of Justice, thus taxes under these revised tax declarations are not yet due, has [sic] not yet accrued, are not yet collectible and therefore, cannot serve as basis for alleged injury.”[6]
“First - The Ombudsman gravely erred in resolving that the assessor acted illegally and in grave misconduct by adjusting/correcting the valuations of the tax declarations subject of the complaints.In his Memorandum[13] dated March 18, 1997, the ombudsman encapsulates the issues, which we adopt, as follows:
Second - It is gravely erroneous for both respondents to assume that taxes for the subject tax declarations had accrued and become payable, thereby making petitioners liable for causing undue injury to the city government of Cebu.
Third - The Ombudsman manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which if properly considered would justify a different conclusion.
Fourth - It is both gravely erroneous and a grave abuse in the exercise of discretion for the Ombudsman to hold liable the rest of the petitioners aside from Mr. Callanta, the city assessor who alone promulgated the act/policy.
Fifth - The Ombudsman and Mayor Osmeña [of Cebu City] had clearly acted with undue haste amounting to grave abuse of discretion and violation of existing laws and regulations in effecting the dismissal of herein petitioners.”[12]
“Whether or not petitioners violated the law by their acts of accommodating requests for reconsideration of the revised assessments;
In the affirmative, whether or not the violations were injurious/prejudicial to Cebu City; and Whether or not the acts of petitioners constitute grave misconduct and/or negligence which warrants [sic] their dismissal/suspension from service.”
“Sec. 22. Valuation of Real Property. – Upon the discovery of real property or during the general revision of property assessments as provided in Section twenty-one of this Code or at any time when requested by the person in whose name the property is declared, the provincial or city assessor or his authorized deputy shall make an appraisal and assessment in accordance with Section five hereof of the real property listed and described in the declaration irrespective of any previous assessment or taxpayer’s valuation thereon: Provided, however, That the assessment of real property shall not be increased oftener once every five years in the absence of new improvements increasing the value of said property or of any change in its use, except as otherwise provided in this Code.”Public respondents, on the other hand, insist that petitioners have no legal authority to act upon requests for reconsideration or appeals of property owners, a power which is explicitly vested upon the LBAA under Sec. 30 of the Real Property Tax Code, as amended, which provides:
“Sec. 30. Local Board of Assessment Appeals. – Any owner who is not satisfied with the action of the provincial or city assessor in the assessment of his property may, within sixty days from the date of receipt by him of the written notice of assessment as provided in this Code, appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals of the province or city, by filing with it a petition under oath using the form prescribed for the purpose, together with the copies of the tax declarations and such affidavit or documents submitted in support of the appeal.”We find no merit in the contentions of petitioners. Enlightening is the following disquisition by the counsel[15] for the ombudsman on the above-cited legal provisions:
Applying the above, we agree with the following conclusions of the deputy ombudsman:“The instances referred to [under Sec. 22] are as follows:It is not disputed that the assessment/valuation involved herein were conducted by virtue of the 1988 general revision of property assessments under No. 2 instance above.
1.) upon the discovery of real property;
2.) during the general revision of property assessments as provided in Section 21 of the Code; and
3.) at anytime [sic] when requested by the person in whose name the property is declared.
After an assessment has been conducted, the assessor shall within thirty days issue a written notice of such new or revised assessment to the person in whose name the property is declared. (Section 27, PD 464). If the owner is not satisfied with the action of the assessor in the assessment of his property, he may appeal within sixty days from receipt of the notice of assessment to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals pursuant to Section 30 of P.D. 464 which provides:
x x x x x x x x x
Under the aforecited procedure, the issuance of a notice of assessment by the local assessor shall be his last action on a particular assessment. On the side of the property owner, it is this last action which gives him [the] right to appeal to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals. The above procedure also, does not grant the property owner the remedy of filing a motion for reconsideration before the local assessor.
The act of herein petitioners in providing the corresponding notices of assessment the chance for the property owners concerned to file a motion for reconsideration and for acting on the motions filed is not in accordance with law and in excess of their authority and therefore constitutes ultra vires acts.”[16]
“x x x The appraisal and assessment done pursuant to the 1988 general revision work were within the purview of the second instance (i.e. during the general revision x x x as set forth in said Sec. 22[)]. But to make the same appraisal and assessment upon the request of the property owners who were not satisfied with the result of the first valuation of their property is grossly out of context in the application of the third instance allowed by Sec. 22. [W]hat the property owners involved were actually asking were practically a reappraisal and reassessment of the properties (because an appraisal and assessment had already been made under the second instance and their request was prompted by the receipt of the written notice of such valuation), the allowance for which is nowhere to be discerned in the provisions of Sec. 22 x x x.”[17]To repeat, Sec. 22 clearly provides three (3) occasions when assessments of real properties may be made by the local assessor. In the case at bar, the second instance gave rise to the revised assessed values for which the property owners subsequently sought reconsideration. Sec. 30 of the same Code is equally clear that the aggrieved owners should have brought their appeals before the LBAA. Unfortunately, despite the advice to this effect contained in their respective notices of assessment, the owners chose to bring their requests for a review/readjustment before the city assessor, a remedy not sanctioned by the law. To allow this procedure would indeed invite corruption in the system of appraisal and assessment. It conveniently courts a graft-prone situation where values of real property may be initially set unreasonably high, and then subsequently reduced upon the request of a property owner. In the latter instance, allusions of a possible covert, illicit trade-off cannot be avoided, and in fact can conveniently take place. Such occasion for mischief must be prevented and excised from our system.
“An assessment fixes and determines the tax liability of a taxpayer. As soon as it is served, an obligation arises on the part of the taxpayer concerned to pay the amount assessed and demanded.”[21]In the same vein, we have said that “the assessment is deemed made when the notice to this effect is released, mailed or sent to the taxpayer for the purpose of giving effect to said assessment.”[22]
“No proof, however, can be obtained from the evidence presented that would strongly indicate that private respondents knowingly induced or caused the respondent public officers to commit the offense defined in Sec. 3 (e), R.A. 3019 as amended, nor is there any sufficient showing that said private respondents had directly or indirectly given any gift, present, share, percentage or benefit to the respondents [sic] public officers or any other person in connection with the questioned transaction subject of the instant cases. x x x”[25]Without evidence showing that petitioners received any gift, money or other payoff or that they were induced by offers of such, we cannot impute any taint of direct corruption to the questioned acts of petitioners.
“Sec. 30. Any owner who is not satisfied with the action of the provincial or city assessor in the assessment of his property may, within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt by him of the written notice of assessment x x x appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals of the province or city, x x x.”[8]
“Sec. 106. Omission of property from assessment or tax rolls by officers and other acts. – Any officer charged with the duty of assessing real property, who shall willfully fail to assess, or shall intentionally omit from the assessment or tax roll, any real property which he knows to be lawfully taxable or shall willfully or through gross negligence underassess any real property or shall intentionally violate or fail to perform any duty imposed upon him by law relating to the assessment of taxable real property, shall upon conviction be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand pesos or by imprisonment of not more than one year, or both, at the discretion of the court.[9] The Deputy Ombudsman must have referred to Sec. 4 (A) (c), which provides:
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any officer charged with the duty of collecting the tax due on real property who shall willfully fail to collect the tax and institute the necessary proceedings for the collection of the same.
Any other officer required by this Code to perform acts relating to the administration of the real property tax, or to assist the assessor or treasurer in such administration, who shall willfully fail to discharge such duties, shall upon conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred pesos or by imprisonment of not more than six months, or both, at the discretion of the court.”
“Sec. 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. -- (A) Every public official and employee shall observe the following as standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties:[10] Order dated April 18, 1994; Rollo, pp. 37-38.x x x x x x x x x
(c) Justness and sincerity. -- Public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest. They shall not dispense or extend undue favors on account of their office to their relatives whether by consanguinity or affinity except with respect to appointments of such relatives to positions considered strictly confidential or as members of their personal staff whose terms are coterminous with theirs.”
TAXPAYER | PREVIOUS ASSESSED VALUE | AS. VALUE PER GEN. REVISION | ADJUSTED ASSESSED VALUE |
“3. Avila Jesus | 640,000 | 3,679,950 | 1,827,920” |
“4. Enriquetta Uy | 49,850 | 414,350 | 171,690” |
“5. Sps. Corazon & Lee Hiu Sing | 10,350 | 178,590 | 42,230” |
“9. Alfonso Allan | 19,500 | 545,680 | 258,800” |
“10. Lim Khe Chiong | 8,100 | 182,690 | 33,890” |
“12. Discoro & Amalia Lazaro | 28,530 | 470,000 | 136,360” |
“17. Gervacio Go | 48,940 | 663,410 | 197,730” |
“19, Victoria Lee | 1,146,790 | 2,359.750 | 934,560” |
“20. Cebu Graphic Arts | 69,500 | 797,420 | 159,120” |
“22. Sps. Gaudencio & Lilia Hermosisima | 234,050 | 1,016,460 | 401,710” |
“Sec. 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice and lead modest lives.”[28] Section 11, RA 6713 provides:
Sec 11. Penalties – (a) Any public official or employee, regardless of whether or not he holds office or employment in a casual, temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing any violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency. xxx”[29] Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, Vol I, 1987 ed., pp. 205-206.