G.R. No. 181756 - MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MCIAA), VS. CITY OF LAPU-LAPU AND ELENA T. PACALDO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, petitioners application for a writ of preliminary injunction is granted. Consequently, upon the approval of a bond in the amount of one million pesos (P1,000,000.00), let a writ of preliminary injunction issue enjoining the respondents, the intervenor, their agents or persons acting in [their] behalf, to desist from consolidating and exercising ownership over the properties of the petitioner. However, upon motion of respondents, the RTC lifted the writ of preliminary injunction in an Order [15] dated December 5, 2005. The RTC reasoned as follows: The respondent City, in the course of the hearing of its motion, presented to this Court a certified copy of its Ordinance No. 44 (Omnibus Tax Ordinance of the City of Lapu-Lapu), Section 25 whereof authorized the collection of a rate of one and one-half (1 ½) [per centum] from owners, executors or administrators of any real estate lying within the jurisdiction of the City of Lapu-Lapu, based on the assessed value as shown in the latest revision. Though this ordinance was enacted prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), to the mind of the Court this ordinance is still a valid and effective ordinance in view of Sec. 529 of RA 7160 x x x [and the] Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7160 x x x. x x x x x x x x x The tax collected under Ordinance No. 44 is within the rates prescribed by RA 7160, though the 25% penalty collected is higher than the 2% interest allowed under Sec. 255 of the said law which provides: In case of failure to pay the basic real property tax or any other tax levied under this Title upon the expiration of the periods as provided in Section 250, or when due, as the case may be, shall subject the taxpayer to the payment of interest at the rate of two percent (2%) per month on the unpaid amount or a fraction thereof, until the delinquent tax shall have been fully paid: Provided, however, That in no case shall the total interest on the unpaid tax or portion thereof exceed thirty-six (36) months. This difference does not however detract from the essential enforceability and effectivity of Ordinance No. 44 pursuant to Section 529 of RA 7160 and Article 278 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations. The outcome of this disparity is simply that respondent City can only collect an interest of 2% per month on the unpaid tax. Consequently, respondent City [has] to recompute the petitioners tax liability. It is also the Courts perception that respondent City can still collect the additional 1% tax on real property without an ordinance to this effect. It may be recalled that Republic Act No. 5447 has created the Special Education Fund which is constituted from the proceeds of the additional tax on real property imposed by the law. Respondent City has collected this tax as mandated by this law without any ordinance for the purpose, as there is no need for it. Even when RA 5447 was amended by PD 464 (Real Property