Metro Iloilo Water District vs. The Honorable Commissioner, et al.

DECISION

Respondent in his Memorandum raised the issue that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain petitioner's appeal citing as ground section 66, Chapter 14, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), it is expressly provided that:

"Chapter 14 -

CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE

GOVERNMENT OFF ICES AN D CORPORATIONS

Sec. 66.

How settled. - All disputes, claims and controversies, solely between or among the departments, bureaus, offi ces, agencies and instrumentalities of the

National

Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, such as those arising from the interpretation and application of statutes, contracts or Agreements, shall be administrati vely settled or adj udicated in the man ner provided on this Chapter. 870

I

- 2 - This Chapter shall, however, not apply to disputes involving the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional/Commissions and local governments. Section 67. - Disputes Involving Questions of Facts and Law. - Cases involving mixed questions of law and of fact or only factual issues shall be submitted to and settled or adjudicated by: (I) The Solicitor General, if the dispute, claim or controversy involved only departments, bureaus, offices and other agencies of the National Government as well as government-owned or controlled corporations or entities of whom he is the principal law ollicer or general counsel,; and (2) The_ Secretary of Justice in all cases not falling under paragraph ( 1 ).

The above Section is an amendment of the original provtston 111 Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 242, quoted hereunder in the cited case of DBP vs. Court of Appeals.

As admitted in its Petition for Review, petitioner, Metro Iloilo Water District is a government-controlled corporation organized under PO I 9S, as amended; while respondent, Commissioner of Internal Revenue is the head of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) a national government agency charged with the assessment and collection of national taxes. Applying the aforequotecl provisions of law disputes or controversies between or among government entities including government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be administratively settled or adjudicated, as the case may be, by the officials mentioned therein and not by the Court ofTax Appeals. Thus as clearly expressed by this Court in the case of PIIilippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation vs. Tile 1-lon.LhvayJvay Vinzons-Ciwto, 87i

- 3 - Commissioner of lntem.al Revenue, CIA Case No. 5196, JY/ay 17, 1996, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Development Bank of t!te Philippines vs. T!te Court of Appeals and t!te Commissiouer of Customs ( 180 SCRA 612): "Our firm resolve is based on the lack of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition. Petitioner has no legal standing to sue before the Court of Tax Appeals. It must be noted that Petitioner is a government-owned and controlled corporation created under its enabling statute, Presidential Decree No. 550, as amended. (Petition for Review, par. 1, p. I, CT A records).

In_ the case of the Development Bank of the Philippines VS . Court or Appeals (I 80 SCRA 612-614, 617), the High Tribunal held, thusly : "xxx

The Court of Appeals

sustained the position of the customs Commissioner that it was grave error for the Court of Tax Appeals to have taken cognizance of the case is view of the explicit provisions of Presidential Decree no. 242, pertinently providing that: SECTION I. Provisions of law to the contrary notwithstanding all disputes, claims and controversies solely between or among the departments, bureaus, oflices, agencies and instrumentalities of the

National

Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations but excluding constitutional offices or agencies, arising from the interpretation and application of statutes, contracts or agreements, shall henceforth be administratively settled or adjudicated as provided hereinafter: Provided, That this shall not apply to cases already pending in court at the time of the effectivity of this decree .. " 87 ~ - 4 - SEC. 2.

1n all cases involving only questions of law, the same shall be submitted to and settled or adjudicated by the Secretary of Justice, as

Attorney

General and exofficio legal adviser of all government- owned or controlled corporations and entities, in consonance with section 83 of the

Revised

Administrative Code.

His

ruling or determination of the question in each case shall be conclusive and binding upon all the parties concerned.

Sec.

3.

Cases

involving mixed questions or law and of fact or only factual 1ssues shall be submitted to and settled or adjudicated by:

(a) The

Solicitor

General, with respect to disputes or claims or controversies between or among the departments, bureaus, offices and other agenc1es of the

National

government;

(b) The Government

Corporate

Counsel, with respect to disputes or claims or controversies between or among the government- owned or controlkcl corporations or entities being served by the Office of the

Government

Counsel; and 8., ,-, ' 1.)

Corporate

DECISION

CTA CASE NO. 60 93 - - 5 -

(c) The Secretary of Justice, with respect to all other disputes or claims or controversies, which do not fall under the categories, mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).

The

Appellate

Court

ru led that Section 7(2) of Republic Act No. 11 25- pursuant to which the Court of Tax Appeals had therefore been exercising exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving li ~ bility for customs in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges, inter-alia - had been superseded by said P.O. No. 242, it being "a settled rule of statutory construction that where there is irreconcilable repugnance between two statutes anent the same subject matter - as there is between P.D. 242 and Sec. 7 (2) of R.A. No. 11 25 in regard to the manner of settlement of disputes involving customs duties, etc. between government offi ces, agencies and corporations - the one of late enactment, being the latest expression of the legislati ve will, should preva il over the other which is of earlier enactment." Similarly, 111

National Development

Company

vs.

Commissioner of Jutemal Revenue, CTA Case uo. 5309, September 4, 1996, this Court, in sustaining the dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction, explained the purpose for prescribing the procedure for administrati ve settlement or adjudication of disputes between or among government entities and agencies, as follows:

- 6 - Apparently the purpose for prescribing the procedure for administrative settlement or adjudication of disputes, claims and controversies bet ween or among government offices, agencies, instrumentalities, including government owned or controlled corporation was to "avoid litigation in Court where government lawyers appear for government offices, agencies and intrumcntalities to espouse and protect their respective interests although, in the ultimate analysis, there is but one real party in interest - the GOVERNMENT ITSELf<' - in such "litigation" and to avoid, too, "needlessly contributing to the clogged dockets of the Courts and dissipating or wasting the time and energies not only of the Courts but also of the government lawyers ~nd the considerable expenses incurred 111 the filing and prosecution of judicial actions". Considering the apparent lack of jurisdiction of thi's Court, it docs not find proper anymore to dwell on the other issues raised by the Respondent.

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing discussion, this petition for review is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

1 CONCUR:

~-a . c~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA

Presiding Judge

870

- 7 -

CERTIFICATION

1 hereby certify that the above decision was reached after due consultation with the members of the Court of Tax Appeals in accordance with Section 13, /\rticlc VIII of the Constitution.

8'7 G

~~-c~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA

Presiding Judge