LOPEZ, M., J.:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, petitioner's application for the Writ of Preliminary Injunction is hereby DENIED for lack of legal and factual bases.On July 5, 2012, petitioner moved to reconsider RTC's adverse ruling.[23]
Respondent City may proceed with the auction sale of the redundant assets subject to the observance of the proper procedures under Section 258 of the Local Government Code.
SO ORDERED.[22]
On the strength of the above constitutional provisions, it can be fairly interpreted that the power of the CTA includes that of determining whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC in issuing an interlocutory order in cases falling within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the tax court. It, thus, follows that the CTA, by constitutional mandate, is vested with jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari in these cases.Accordingly, the CTA's exclusive appellate jurisdiction over a decision of the RTC in a local tax case necessarily includes determining whether the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing an interlocutory order relative to the main action. "The supervisory power or jurisdiction of the CTA to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction should co-exist with, and be a complement to, its appellate jurisdiction to review, by appeal, the final orders and decisions of the RTC, in order to have complete supervision over the acts of the latter."[37]
Indeed, in order for any appellate court, to effectively exercise its appellate jurisdiction, it must have the authority to issue, among others, a writ of certiorari. In transferring exclusive jurisdiction over appealed tax cases to the CTA, it can reasonably be assumed that the law intended to transfer also such power as is deemed necessary, if not indispensable, in aid of such appellate jurisdiction. There is no perceivable reason why the transfer should only be considered as partial, not total.
x x x x
Furthermore, Section 6, Rule 135 of the present Rules of Court provides that when by law, jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such court or officer.
If this Court were to sustain petitioners' contention that jurisdiction over their certiorari petition lies with the CA, this Court would be confirming the exercise by two judicial bodies, the CA and the CTA, of jurisdiction over basically the same subject matter — precisely the split-jurisdiction situation which is anathema to the orderly administration of justice. The Court cannot accept that such was the legislative motive, especially considering that the law expressly confers on the CTA, the tribunal with the specialized competence over tax and tariff matters, the role of judicial review over local tax cases without mention of any other court that may exercise such power. Thus, the Court agrees with the ruling of the CA that since appellate jurisdiction over private respondents' complaint for tax refund is vested in the CTA, it follows that a petition for certiorari seeking nullification of an interlocutory order issued in the said case should, likewise, be filed with the same court. To rule otherwise would lead to an absurd situation where one court decides an appeal in the main case while another court rules on an incident in the very same case.
Stated differently, it would be somewhat incongruent with the pronounced judicial abhorrence to split jurisdiction to conclude that the intention of the law is to divide the authority over a local tax case filed with the RTC by giving to the CA or this Court jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari against interlocutory orders of the RTC but giving to the CTA the jurisdiction over the appeal from the decision of the trial court in the same case. It is more in consonance with logic and legal soundness to conclude that the grant of appellate jurisdiction to the CTA over tax cases filed in and decided by the RTC carries with it the power to issue a writ of certiorari when necessary in aid of such appellate jurisdiction. The supervisory power or jurisdiction of the CTA to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction should co-exist with, and be a complement to, its appellate jurisdiction to review, by appeal, the final orders and decisions of the RTC, in order to have complete supervision over the acts of the latter.
A grant of appellate jurisdiction implies that there is included in it the power necessary to exercise it effectively, to make all orders that will preserve the subject of the action, and to give effect to the final determination of the appeal. It carries with it the power to protect that jurisdiction and to make the decisions of the court thereunder effective. The court, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, has authority to control all auxiliary and incidental matters necessary to the efficient and proper exercise of that jurisdiction. For this purpose, it may, when necessary, prohibit or restrain the performance of any act which might interfere with the proper exercise of its rightful jurisdiction in cases pending before it.[36]
Here, petitioner's argument in disputing the local tax assessment does not involve the application of tax laws because this issue has already been resolved with finality when petitioner secured a final and executory judgment embodied in the Decision dated November 13, 2007. What petitioner seeks instead is to enforce the said final and executory judgment.In Ignacio v. Office of the City Treasurer of Quezon City,[41] the case was related to collecting tax deficiencies. However, the Court ruled that it was not a local tax case over which the CTA could have properly assumed jurisdiction. The action filed with the RTC was essentially one for recovery of ownership and possession of the property, which is not anchored on a tax issue but due on process considerations. Thus, the case was correctly elevated to the CA, viz.:
Even the trial court, in its Order dated August 6, 2015, acknowledged this, and held that:[Petitioner] herein did not directly protest the assessment which as of the moment, is the subject of proper proceedings with [respondent] City Treasurer. What it seeks to correct is the previous acts committed by [respondents], particularly the very basis of the assessments it issued and its relation to the effects of the Decision dated 13 November 2007. The issue shall be delved into deeply by this Court once it goes into the merits of the instant Petition. At this point, this Court understands that [petitioner] does not seek to protest the amount of the assessment, but based upon its Petition, it merely seeks to define its rights under the Decision dated 13 November 2007.To reiterate, the local tax case that may be elevated to the trial court and eventually to the CTA is the deficiency business tax assessment for taxable years 2010-2013 which was still under administrative review at the time petitioner filed the petition for declaratory relief. Upon denial of petitioner's protest, it would inevitably elevate the same to the court of competent jurisdiction.
Whereas in this case, what are being questioned are the interlocutory orders issued by the RTC which did not rule on the validity of the assessments but merely ordered respondents to refrain from proceeding further with the assessments until the computation of petitioner's business taxes has been determined in accordance with the previous final and executory Decision. Likewise, the RTC's order for respondents to issue a temporary business permit to petitioner was merely to prevent grave and irreparable damage to petitioner while the main case before the trial court is still ongoing. Clearly, the assailed orders of the RTC are not issued in a local tax case contemplated under Section 7(a)(3) of the R.A. 9282.[40]
In this case, a reading of the Annulment Complaint shows that Teresa's action before the RTC-Br. 85 is essentially one for recovery of ownership and possession of the property, with damages, which is not anchored on a tax issue, but on due process considerations. Particularly, she alleged that: (a) public respondents sent the Notice of Delinquency in July 2008, and the corresponding Warrant of Levy in May 2009, to a wrong address; (b) they knew her correct address as early as March 2007, or before they sent the Notice and Warrant; (c) she had in fact already filed an action against them involving a different property, for likewise sending the notice to a wrong address; and (d) their willful violation of her right to notice of the levy and auction sale deprived her of her right to take the necessary steps and action to prevent the sale of the property, participate in the auction sale, or otherwise redeem the property from Sps. Dimalanta. In other words, the Annulment Complaint's allegations do not contest the tax assessment on the property, as Teresa only bewails the alleged lack of due process which deprived her of the opportunity to participate in the delinquency sale proceedings. As such, the RTC-Br. 85's ruling thereon could not be characterized as a local tax case over which the CTA could have properly assumed jurisdiction on appeal. In fine, the case was correctly elevated to the CA. (Emphasis supplied)On the other hand, the petition for injunction filed before the RTC in City of Lapu-Lapu v. Phil. Economic Zone Authority[42] was a local tax case. The PEZA sought to enjoin the collection of its alleged real property taxes on the ground that it is exempt from the payment of RPT. The RTC denied its petition so it filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. The Court ruled that the proper remedy was to file an appeal to the CTA.
[T]he PEZA's petition for certiorari was filed before the wrong court. The PEZA should have filed its petition before the Court of Tax Appeals.In National Power Corp. v. Provincial Government of Bataan,[44] the case involved the validity and legality of the foreclosure sale, which is related to the demandability of the local franchise tax – a local tax issue. We ruled that the CA correctly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court of Tax Appeals has the exclusive appellate jurisdiction over local tax cases decided by Regional Trial Courts. Section 7, paragraph (a)(3) of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended by Republic Act No. 9282. provides:Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. — The [Court of Tax Appeals] shall exercise:The local tax cases referred to in Section 7, paragraph (a) (3) of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, include cases involving real property taxes. Real property taxation is governed by Book II of the Local Government Code on "Local Taxation and Fiscal Matters." Real property taxes are collected by the Local Treasurer, not by the Bureau of Internal Revenue in charge of collecting national internal revenue taxes, fees, and charges.
a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:
x x x x
3. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction[.]
Section 7, paragraph (a)(5) of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended by Republic Act No. 9282, separately provides for the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals over decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals involving the assessment or collection of real property taxes:Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. — The [Court of Tax Appeals] shall exercise:This separate provision, nevertheless, does not bar the Court of Tax Appeals from taking cognizance of trial court decisions involving the collection of real property tax cases. Sections 256 and 266 of the Local Government Code expressly allow local government units to file "in any court of competent jurisdiction" civil actions to collect basic real property taxes. Should the, trial court rule against them, local government units cannot be barred from appealing before the Court of Tax Appeals — the "highly specialized body specifically created for the purpose of reviewing tax cases."
a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:
x x x x
5. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals[.]
We have also ruled that the Court of Tax Appeals, not the Court of Appeals, has the exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari assailing interlocutory orders issued by Regional Trial Courts in a local tax case. We explained in The City of Manila v. Hon. Grecia-Cuerdo that while the Court of Tax Appeals has no express grant of power to issue writs of certiorari under Republic Act No. 1125, 214 as amended, the tax court's judicial power as defined in the Constitution includes the power to determine "whether or not there has been grave abuse or discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the [Regional Trial Court] in issuing an interlocutory order of jurisdiction in cases falling within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the tax court."
x x x x
In this case, the petition for injunction filed before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay was a local tax case originally decided by the trial court in its original jurisdiction. Since the PEZA assailed a judgment, not an interlocutory order, of the Regional Trial Court, the PEZA's proper remedy was an appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals.[43] (Emphasis supplied.)
The case a quo is a local tax case that is within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals. Parenthetically, the case arose from the dispute between Napocor and respondents over the purported franchise tax delinquency of Napocor. Although the complaint filed with the trial court is a Petition for declaration of nullity of foreclosure sale with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction, a reading of the petition shows that it essentially assails the correctness of the local franchise tax assessments by the Provincial Government of Bataan. Indeed, one of the prayers in the petition is for the court a quo to declare Napocor "as exempt from payment of local franchise taxes." Basic is the rule that allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought determine the nature of an action. In order for the trial court to resolve the complaint, the issues regarding the correctness of the tax assessment and collection must also necessarily be dealt with. As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, "the issue of the validity and legality of the foreclosure sale is essentially related to the issue of the demandability of the local franchise tax."[45] (Boldfacing supplied; italics in the original)Similarly, the instant case primarily involves a tax issue. Petitioner was questioning the denial of its application for a writ of injunction to enjoin the respondents from selling the redundant assets in consequence of its alleged unpaid RPT. In particular, petitioner claimed in its Petition for Prohibition with application for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction[46] that the properties sought to be auctioned are owned by the Government and thus, exempt from the payment of RPT. Being in the nature of a local tax case, the petitioner should have filed the petition with the CTA and not with the CA.