Vol. XXI, No. 237 [ BusinessWorld Online ]
Thursday, July 3, 2008 | MANILA, PHILIPPINES
THE SUPREME COURT has prevented the local government of Bataan from enforcing an order to auction off Petron Corp.’s assets worth P1.7 billion.
In a 10-page decision penned by Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, the third division of the high court affirmed the decision of a Bataan court that issued an injunction in the oil firm’s favor.
"If at all, the repercussions and far-reaching implications of the sale of these properties on the operations of Petron merit the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in its favor," the high court said.
The sale of the properties, which include the firm’s machineries and equipment at its refinery in Bataan, is an offshoot of the provincial assessor’s findings that Petron had P1.7 billion worth of deficiency real property taxes from 1994 to the second quarter of 2007.
Petron challenged the assessment, saying the properties had been previously declared and that the fair market value assessed was erroneous.
While the issue was on appeal, Provincial Treasurer Emerlinda Talento issued a warrant of levy on the properties in question.
Petron argued that the warrant was premature, having posted a surety bond with the local Board of Assessment Appeals where it had filed an appeal.
The trial court later ruled in Petron’s favor. Without reconsidering the decision, Ms. Talento immediately brought the case to the high tribunal. She said the court could better answer questions of law, such as whether the collection of taxes could be suspended by virtue of Petron’s appeal and surety bond.
The high court, however, criticized her actions, saying she had disregarded the hierarchy of courts.
"[The] petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration [before the lower court] deprived the trial court of the opportunity to rectify an error unwittingly committed, or to vindicate itself of an act unfairly imputed," it said.
A motion for reconsideration, it added, is the plain, speedy and adequate remedy to the trial court’s adverse judgment. — IPP
______________________________________________________________________
