1. Plaintiff, in its Reply, extensively discussed the distinctions
between original and appellate jurisdiction citing the case of Yamane vs. BA Lepanto Condominium Corporation GR No. 154993; October 25, 2005;
2. With due respect, significant portion of the decision was
omitted. The Supreme Court in the Yamane case made a qualification, to wit:
“However, we make this pronouncement subject to two important
qualifications. First, in this particular case there are nonetheless significant reasons for the Court to overlook the procedural error and ultimately uphold the adjudication of the jurisdiction exercised by the Court of Appeals in this case. Second, the doctrinal weight of the pronouncement is confined to cases and controversies that emerged prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 9282, the law which expanded the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).” (Emphasis and underscoring ours.)
3. Republic Act No. 9282 otherwise known as the “Law
creating the Court of Tax Appeals” was enacted March 30, 2004, that is, prior to the assessment in question hence, the case cited has no doctrinal value in the case at bar;
4. Noteworthy is the provision in Section 7 a (3) of RA 9282
further classifying the extent of jurisdiction by the lower court: 1 "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;
5. In the exercise of original jurisdiction, say for certiorari,
there is no order of default. More so when the court is exercising its appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, the court will proceed to render judgment based on the records specially if it, as admitted and submitted by the parties, purely involves a question of law for the simple reason that the facts are deemed uncontroverted hence, there is no factual issue/s to be resolved;
6. Be that as it may, the parties have agreed on one common
principle- The case is already ripe for judicial determination as it is posed a question of law;
7. What is discombobulating, however, is the fact that plaintiff
seemed to be uneasy with the syllogism made in the Opposition. Again to incorporate:
6a. This representation submits the case for the resolution
of the Honorable Court which he hoped to be resolved based on the following basic premises:
a. The phrase “in lieu of all taxes” is a tax absolutory clause
hence, the rule that an entity claiming exemption bears the burden of proof and it must pass muster the principle that tax exemptions are strictly construed;
b. Since there is a doubt in the statutory text of the
appellant’s franchise, there is a need for them to prove that in the legislative deliberations, the intention of the legislature is unequivocal as to its claim for exemption. Without such categorical statement, the onus remains with the appellant and the strict construction on tax exemption stands.
8. The phrase “in lieu of taxes” continuously haunts our courts
in a catena of cases. Certainly, the doubt as to its proper import can only be resolved by going to the spirit of the law which can be deciphered by the deliberations in the legislative halls. In that way, the proper interpretation and construction will be safe and accurate.
2 WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Honorable Court will find the case ripe for judicial determination and submit the case for resolution based on the records.