d2015member

Ursal (City Assessor of Cebu) v. Court of Tax Appeals & Noel | Ursal (City Assessor of Cebu) v. CTA & Samson (1957) Bengzon, J. The City Assessor appeals to the CTA when his decision of the tax of 2 real properties were reduced by the Board of Assessment Appeals. Facts:

In the exercise of his powers, Ursal, as the City Assessor of Cebu, assessed for taxation some real properties of Noel and Samson. Upon protest of these 2 taxpayers, the Cebu Board of Assessment Appeals reduced the assessments. After this, the City Assessor took the matter to the CTA insisting on his valuation. The CTA however, said that his appeal was late and besides, he had no personality to bring this matter before the CTA citing RA 1125 (law creating the CTA): Sec. 11. Who may appeal; effect of appeal. Any person, association or corporation adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Collector of Internal Revenue, the Collector of Customs or any provincial or city Board of Assessment Appeals may file an appeal in the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty days after the receipt of such decision or ruling.

Issue/Held: Did the City Assessor of Cebu have personality to resort to the CTA? NO Ratio: The rulings of the Board of Assessment Appeals did not adversely affect him. At the most, it was the City that was adversely affected bec it could not collect higher taxes from the property owners. Although his opinion was overruled, it did no material damage to him or his office. The law crating the CTA did not grant it blanket authority to decide any and all tax disputes. The CTA was not created to decide mere conflicts of opinion between admin officers and agencies. The law limited its authority to matters enumerated. Example: in the case of Lopez v. CTA, the CTAs jurisdiction extends only to review decision of the Commissioner of Customs (as provided in the law) and not to decisions of the Collector of Customs. The CTA is the successor of the former Central Board of Tax Appeals and the law creating the CTA in place of those former agencies failed to reenact the express permission given to the City Assessor to appeal to the Central Boar of Tax appeals. Oversight was not the cause of the withholding, since there were proper grounds: (a) Discipline and command responsibility in the executive branches; (b) Instead of being another superior administrative agency as was the former Board of Tax Appeals, the CTA is a part of the judicial system to act only on protests of private persons adversely affected by the tax, custom, or assessment. CA 530 (the law creating the Central Board of Tax Appeals) is no longer in force as the law creating the CTA is a comp lete law by itself and expressly enumerated what the CTA may consider. The enumeration excludes all others by implication. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Petition denied.