FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 233861. January 12, 2021.]

CITY OF ILOILO, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY

and DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

DECISION

ZALAMEDA, J : p

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of

the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated
22 November 2016 and Resolution 3 dated 28 July 2017 in CA G.R. CV No.
102578.
Antecedents
On 03 November 2005, the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP)
received a Notice of Garnishment 4 from petitioner City of Iloilo (petitioner),
levying bank deposits of the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) on account of
its realty and business taxes delinquencies, interest, charges and penalties
in the amount of Php44,298,470.11, pursuant to this Court's judgment in
G.R. Nos. 109791 5 and 143214. 6 DBP thus notified PPA of the notice of
garnishment. 7
PPA requested petitioner to recall the notice of garnishment, 8 claiming
that its liability for local and real property taxes subject of this Court's
judgment in G.R. Nos. 109791 and 143214, including interests and
surcharges, had already been paid. 9 It also asked DBP to release its funds
from garnishment. 10 Both efforts to cancel the garnishment of its funds
proved futile.
On 05 June 2009, PPA filed a complaint against petitioner and DBP for
declaration of nullity of the notice of garnishment with prayer for temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction, 11 docketed as
Civil Case No. 09-121552, before Branch 33, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Manila.
DBP, in its Answer, acknowledged the local government unit's power to
issue a notice of garnishment against bank deposits of delinquent taxpayers.
It explained that it is has no authority to determine if PPA had already
settled its tax obligations with petitioner, hence, it cannot release PPA's
funds from garnishment. 12
Petitioner, for its part, argued that the complaint had no cause of
action since PPA's status as a taxable entity had already been settled under
G.R. Nos. 109791 and 143214. It also alleged that PPA failed to comply with
the condition precedent under Section 252 of the Local Government Code
(LGC), specifically, to pay its tax liabilities under protest. 13
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 The RTC denied the application for a writ of injunction on 23 July 2009.
14 The PPA questioned the RTC resolution before the CA through a petition
f o r certiorari, which was denied. This Court affirmed the CA in G.R. No.
204908.
On 19 September 2012, the RTC rendered a Decision 15 dismissing
PPA's complaint for lack of merit. It found that the notice of garnishment was
not limited to the amounts subject of G.R. Nos. 109791 and 143214 but also
included other liabilities, particularly those pertaining to the Iloilo Port
Complex. The RTC ruled that PPA could not invoke the ruling in Spouses
Curata v. Philippine Ports Authority 16 because the subject of that decision
was expropriation, and it was issued in 2009, or four (4) years after
petitioner's issuance of the notice of garnishment in 2005.
PPA thus appealed to the CA. 17 Notably, only DBP filed an appellee's
brief. Meanwhile, on 07 November 2013, petitioner requested DBP to release
Php67,686,923.90 additional funds from PPA's accounts, in view of the
finality of this Court's judgment in G.R. No. 204908. 18
DBP, through its Balanga, Bataan branch, remitted to petitioner the
deposits of PPA in the amount of Php3,892,372.99 on 26 November 2013. 19
It remitted an additional Php554,959.72 on 18 December 2013, allegedly
pertaining to the interests accruing on the previously garnished deposits of
PPA. 20
On 20 November 2014, petitioner issued sixteen (16) notices of
assessment to PPA for its real property tax liabilities for 2015. 21
Ruling of the CA
The CA granted the appeal and ruled in favor of PPA on 22 November
2016. It declared the Notice of Garnishment dated 26 October 2005 void,
and directed petitioner to return the amount of Php26,661,552.41 to PPA. 22
It held that PPA is a government instrumentality pursuant to the rulings
i n MIAA v. Court of Appeals (MIAA case), 23 Republic v. Parañaque , 24
Philippine Fisheries Development Authority v. Court of Appeals. 25 As such,
its real properties devoted for public use are exempt from real property tax.
26

Further, the CA noted that the issue of whether Iloilo Port Complex is a
taxable property was already settled by a final and executory decision 27 of
Branch 34, RTC of Iloilo City dated 11 August 1992. 28 As to the notice of
garnishment, the CA found it invalid because PPA had already settled its
liabilities under G.R. Nos. 109791 and 143214. The CA also noted that the
City of Iloilo's failure to issue a notice of assessment prior to the distraint
was in violation of Section 195 of the LGC. 29 Finally, it opined that petitioner
should have sought execution of the judgment in G.R. Nos. 109791 and
143214 instead of pursuing civil remedies against PPA. 30
Hence, this petition for review.
Issues
Petitioner raised the following grounds in support of its petition:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS ERRED IN DENYING
THE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DESPITE THE
FACT THAT THE APPELLATE COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER THE QUESTION BEING
THE VALIDITY OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT TO IMPLEMENT
AND ENFORCE LOCAL TAX COLLECTION THROUGH
GARNISHMENT WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA);
II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED AND
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK
OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT HELD THAT SECTION 196
OF RA 7160 DOES NOT FIND APPLICATION IN THE INSTANT CASE.
Petitioner contends that the CA has no jurisdiction to review the
judgment of the RTC. Citing CE Casecnan Water & Energy Co., Inc. v.
Province of Nueva Ecija, 31 it claims that the CTA has jurisdiction to review
the decision of the RTC since the same involves a local tax case. 32 Likewise,
the CA erroneously relied on the MIAA case because allegedly there is no
categorical declaration therein that MIAA and PPA are similarly situated in
terms of their tax-exempt status. 33
Ruling of the Court
The CA has jurisdiction to review the
RTC decision
Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try,
and decide a case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have
authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among
others, jurisdiction over the subject matter. 34 Jurisdiction over the subject
matter of a case is conferred by law. 35
The jurisdiction of the CTA on local tax cases is set forth in Section 7
(a) (3) of Republic Act No. 9282 (RA 9282), viz.:
SEC. 7. Jurisdiction. — The CTA shall exercise:
a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein
provided:
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.
Based on this provision, the CTA's appellate jurisdiction over RTC
decisions, orders, or resolutions may only be invoked over a ruling in a local
tax case. 36 In other words, the action in the RTC must be in the nature of a
tax case, or one which primarily involves a tax issue. 37 On the other hand,
the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the nature of the action
pleaded based on the allegations in the complaint and the character of the
relief sought. 38
In this case, PPA's complaint for declaration of nullity and damages
with prayer for TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction assails petitioner's
resort to garnishment in order to enforce the final and executory judgment
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 of this Court in G.R. Nos. 109791 and 143214, viz.:
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
3.2 As intimated, defendant City sought to garnish plaintiff's funds
with defendant DBP to satisfy plaintiff's alleged liability for taxes,
interests, penalties and surcharges adjudged in G.R. Nos. 109791 and
143214.
3.3 But plaintiff effected full payment of its assessed tax
liabilities as follows:
(i) realty taxes and penalties on the warehouse
subject of G.R. Nos. 109791 and 143214 in the total
amount of Php1,259,916 for the period covering 1985 to
1996;
(i) n business taxes and penalties subject of G.R. No.
109791 in the total amount of Php446,505.92 for the
period of 1984 to 1986 and 1995-2005;
(ii) realty taxes and penalties on the edifices and
buildings covered by G.R. No. 143214 in the aggregate
sum of Php227,917.28.
3.4 That payment of the foregoing sums completely
satisfied the tax liabilities adverted to is evidenced by official
receipts issued by no less than defendant City, thru its City
Treasurer, which indicate the word "FULL" to describe the event of
plaintiff's payment.
3.5 Notwithstanding such clear notation on the official receipts,
defendant City illegally and wantonly issued a notice of garnishment
to collect the very same tax liabilities subject of the mentioned
Supreme Court cases.
3.6 Worse the purposed liabilities ballooned exponentially to
Php44,298,471.37 without any specification.
3.7 Moreover, note that the notice of garnishment was issued in
implementation of the final and executory decisions in G.R. Nos.
109791 and 143214. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
3.9 G.R. No. 109791 to recall, originated from an action for
collection instituted by defendant City. The liabilities adjudged
thereto, as affirmed by the Honorable Supreme Court, is enforceable
only by a writ of execution duly issued by the trial court. Instead of
going thru the legal and procedural remedies in the execution of
judgment, defendant City took upon itself to implement the judgment
by unilaterally issuing the subject notice of garnishment. To
aggravate its procedural lapse, defendant City itself served the notice
of garnishment when it should have been served by the court sheriff
as provided by the rules of court.
3.10 The notice of garnishment therefore, is defective and
irregular on two counts: (i) it is without basis as the liabilities alluded
to therein have been fully paid; and (ii) it was issued in violation of
the rule on execution of judgments, which defendant City
should have followed. Failing in this respect, the notice of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 garnishment should be nullified under Article 4 of the Civil Code which
renders void ab initio acts done in violation of mandatory provision of
the law. 39 (Emphasis ours)
It is apparent then that PPA is not objecting to the amount of its tax
liability. On the contrary, it admitted that it is indeed liable for the real
property and business taxes for the periods adjudged under G.R. Nos.
109791 and 143214. Indeed, it even admits it had already paid its liability in
full. The complaint was merely to question petitioner's resort to
garnishment, claiming that it already paid its liabilities therein. Clearly, PPA's
complaint was not anchored on a tax issue but on the propriety of the
remedy adopted by the City of Iloilo to enforce the final judgment of this
Court. As such, the subject RTC Decision could not be characterized as a
local tax case over which the CTA could have properly assumed jurisdiction
on appeal.
The existence of a final and executory judgment fixing PPA's local and
real property tax liabilities distinguishes this case from CE Casecnan Water &
Energy Co., Inc. v. Province of Nueva Ecija . 40 While the latter case stemmed
from a supposed erroneous assessment of therein petitioner's real property
tax liability, the instant controversy is premised on the erroneous execution
of this Court's final and executory judgment in G.R. Nos. 109791 and
143214.
As an incident of its exemption from
local taxation, its properties are
likewise exempt from the means to
collect such taxes
In the MIAA case, 41 the Court also elucidated that properties of
government instrumentalities are of public dominion and are thus outside
the commerce of men. They are not subject to levy, encumbrance, or
disposition through public or private sale since they are intended for public
use. This is necessarily so because essential public services will stop if
properties of public dominion are subject to encumbrances, foreclosures, and
auction sale. 42
The Court, in Spouses Curata v. Philippine Ports Authority, 43
invalidated the lower court's action in subjecting PPA funds to execution
pending appeal as payment for just compensation. Citing the ruling in MIAA,
this Court declared that PPA is a government instrumentality, whose
properties may not be subjected to any form of execution, viz.:
In Commissioner of Public Highways v. San Diego , no less than
the eminent Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee explained the rationale
behind the doctrine that government funds and properties cannot be
seized under a writ of execution, thus:
The universal rule that where the State gives its
consent to be sued by private parties either by general or
special law, it may limit claimant's action "only up to the
completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of
execution" and that the power of the Courts ends when
the judgment is rendered, since government funds and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 properties may not be seized under writs of execution or
garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is based on
obvious considerations of public policy. Disbursements of
public funds must be covered by the corresponding
appropriation as required by law. The functions and
public services rendered by the State cannot be
allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the
diversion of public funds from their legitimate and
specific objects, as appropriated by law.
PPA's monies, facilities and assets are government
properties. Ergo, they are exempt from execution whether by
virtue of a final judgment or pending appeal.
PPA is a government instrumentality charged with carrying out
governmental functions through the management, supervision,
control and regulation of major ports of the country. It is an attached
agency of the Department of Transportation and Communication
pursuant to PD 505.
This Court's disquisition in Manila International Airport Authority
v. Court of Appeals — ruling that MIAA is not a government-owned
and/or controlled corporation (GOCC), but an instrumentality of the
National Government and thus exempt from local taxation, and that
its real properties are owned by the Republic of the Philippines is —
instructive. Therein we found that MIAA is neither a stock or a non-
stock corporation, for its capital is not divided into shares nor does it
have members. Moreover, the airport lands and buildings it
administers are owned by the Republic, which certainly takes them
outside the commerce of man and makes MIAA a mere trustee
thereof. These findings are squarely applicable to PPA, as it is
similarly situated as MIAA. First, PPA is likewise not a GOCC for
not having shares of stocks or members. Second, the docks,
piers and buildings it administers are likewise owned by the
Republic and, thus, outside the commerce of man. Third, PPA
is a mere trustee of these properties. Hence, like MIAA, PPA
is clearly a government instrumentality, an agency of the
government vested with corporate powers to perform
efficiently its governmental functions.
Therefore, an undeniable conclusion is that the funds of
PPA partake of government funds, and such may not be
garnished absent an allocation by its Board or by statutory
grant. If the PPA funds cannot be garnished and its properties, being
government properties, cannot be levied via a writ of execution
pursuant to a final judgment, then the trial court likewise cannot
grant discretionary execution pending appeal, as it would run afoul
of the established jurisprudence that government properties
are exempt from execution. What cannot be done directly cannot
be done indirectly. (Emphasis ours)
Considering these aforesaid court decisions, PPA's funds cannot be a
subject of execution.
Nonetheless, petitioner cannot be faulted for relying on the Court's
prior rulings when it sought to collect local taxes from PPA on its properties.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 We note and acknowledge that the MIAA case was promulgated in 2006,
while the garnishment subject of the instant case was issued in 2005. Be
that as it may, the Court affirms the CA's finding that the 2005 notice of
garnishment issued by petitioner against PPA is invalid.
The notice of garnishment is void
because it varies the money judgment
set forth in G.R. Nos. 109791 and
143214
Garnishment is a mode of satisfaction of a money judgment.44 In legal
contemplation, it is a forced novation by the substitution of creditors: the
judgment debtor, who is the original creditor of the garnishee is, through
service of the writ of garnishment, substituted by the judgment creditor who
thereby becomes creditor of the garnishee. Under Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court, the garnishee is obliged to deliver "debts due to the judgment obligor
and other credits" 45 to the proper officer issuing the writ. Moreover, "the law
exempts from liability the person having in his possession or under his
control any credits or other personal property belonging to the defendant . . .
if such property be delivered or transferred . . . to the clerk, sheriff, or other
officer of the court in which the action is pending." 46
Given its purpose, a writ of garnishment must necessarily be
consistent with the judgment it intends to satisfy. It must conform to that
ordained or decreed in the dispositive part of the decision. 47 Execution not
in harmony with the judgment is bereft of validity. In this case, the notice of
garnishment was issued to satisfy PPA's liability under this Court's final
judgment in G.R. Nos 109791 and 143214.
In G.R. No. 109791, promulgated in 2003, PPA was held liable for: (1)
Php98,519.16, as real property tax on its warehouse, from the last quarter of
1984 up to December 1986; and (2) the amount of Php3,828.07, as business
tax, for the lease of real estate from the last quarter of 1984 up to 1988. The
tax liability for business taxes was for the lease of its building to private
corporations. Meanwhile, in deciding G.R. No. 143214 a year later, this Court
upheld the petitioner's assessment of real property tax on PPA's warehouse
and buildings from 1985-1989 totaling Php125,990.95.
Considering the amount of PPA's tax liabilities in the aforesaid cases, it
is at once apparent that the amount petitioner sought to collect under the
notice of garnishment in 2005, specifically, Php44,298,470.11, was
drastically in excess of the money judgments against PPA. For this reason,
the notice of garnishment is void as it varies the amounts specified in G.R.
Nos. 109791 and 143214.
PPA's liabilities under G.R. Nos.
109791 and 143214 were already
paid
The irregularity in the notice of garnishment is further highlighted by
the fact that PPA was able to establish that the money judgments, plus
interests and surcharges, in G.R. Nos. 109791 and 143214 were already
settled and paid.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 As noted by the CA, and undisputed by petitioner, PPA paid
Php1,259,916.95 for its real property tax liabilities from 1984 to 1986,
inclusive of charges, interest and penalties, and Php663,381.92 for its
business taxes liabilities from 1984 to 2005, pursuant to the decision in G.R.
No. 109791. On the other hand, to satisfy the judgment in G.R. No. 143214,
PPA paid Php227,917.28. 48
Considering that petitioner already collected on the money judgments
under G.R. Nos. 109791 and 143214, there is no basis for the garnishment of
Php44,298,470.11.
Garnishment for supposed tax
liabilities other than those covered by
G.R. Nos. 109791 and 143214 is void
for lack of prior assessment
To justify the obvious disparity of the money judgments in G.R. Nos.
109791 and 143214, petitioner harps on PPA's supposed tax delinquencies
on its eighteen (18) other properties in Loboc, Lapaz and Veteran's Village in
Iloilo City. 49
Petitioner cannot combine all of PPA's supposed tax liabilities and seek
control of all its funds in various banks without undergoing the proper
process of assessment. Notably, the notice of garnishment dated 26 October
2005 did not cite any other liability other than those pertaining to PPA's
judgment debt on its tax liabilities, viz.:
GARNISHMENT
You are hereby notified by these presents that by virtue of the
Realty and business delinquencies, interests, surcharges and
penalties of the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) and/or Iloilo
Commercial Port Complex, levy is hereby made upon all kinds of bank
deposits in your possession or under your control pursuant to the
Supreme Court decision which has become final and
executory declaring PPA liable for such delinquencies,
interest, surcharges and penalties in the case of PPA v. Iloilo
City docketed as G.R. Nos. 109791 and 143214 copies of
which are hereto attached for your reference, sufficient to cover
the sum of Forty Four Million Two hundred Ninety Eight Thousand
Four Hundred Seventy Pesos and 11/100 (P44,298,470.11) excluding
other lawful fees and incidental expenses on this garnishment
proceedings.
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis ours)
Thus, the RTC's pronouncement that PPA was duly notified of the
assessment on its "other" liabilities "because it was indicated in the first
sentence of the Notice of Garnishment" is incorrect.
The procedure for enforcing local tax liability against a delinquent
taxpayer's personal properties is set forth in Secs. 175 and 195 of the LGC,
to wit:
Section 175. Distraint of Personal Property . — The remedy by
distraint shall proceed as follows:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 (a) Seizure — Upon failure of the person owing any local
tax, fee, or charge to pay the same at the time required, the
local treasurer or his deputy may, upon written notice, seize or
confiscate any personal property belonging to that person or any
personal property subject to the lien in sufficient quantity to satisfy
the tax, fee, or charge in question, together with any increment
thereto incident to delinquency and the expenses of seizure. In such
case, the local treasurer or his deputy shall issue a duly
authenticated certificate based upon the records of his office
showing the fact of delinquency and the amounts of the tax, fee, or
charge and penalty due. Such certificate shall serve as sufficient
warrant for the distraint of personal property aforementioned, subject
to the taxpayer's right to claim exemption under the provisions of
existing laws. Distrained personal property shall be sold at public
auction in the manner hereon provided for.
Section 195. Protest of Assessment. — When the local treasurer or
his duly authorized representative finds that correct taxes, fees, or
charges have not been paid, he shall issue a notice of assessment
stating the nature of the tax, fee, or charge, the amount of
deficiency, the surcharges, interests and penalties. Within sixty
(60) days from the receipt of the notice of assessment, the taxpayer
may file a written protest with the local treasurer contesting the
assessment; otherwise, the assessment shall become final and
executory. The local treasurer shall decide the protest within sixty
(60) days from the time of its filing. If the local treasurer finds the
protest to be wholly or partly meritorious, he shall issue a notice
cancelling wholly or partially the assessment. However, if the local
treasurer finds the assessment to be wholly or partly correct, he shall
deny the protest wholly or partly with notice to the taxpayer. The
taxpayer shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of the denial of
the protest or from the lapse of the sixty (60)-day period prescribed
herein within which to appeal with the court of competent jurisdiction
otherwise the assessment becomes conclusive and unappealable.
(Emphasis ours)
A similar provision for the process of collecting real property tax is
found in Sec. 254 of the LGC, to wit:
Section 254. Notice of Delinquency in the Payment of the Real
Property Tax. — (a) When the real property tax or any other tax
imposed under this Title becomes delinquent, the provincial,
city or municipal treasurer shall immediately cause a notice of
the delinquency to be posted at the main hall and in a publicly
accessible and conspicuous place in each barangay of the local
government unit concerned. The notice of delinquency shall also be
published once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks, in a newspaper
of general circulation in the province, city, or municipality.
(b) Such notice shall specify the date upon which the tax
became delinquent and shall state that personal property
may be distrained to effect payment. It shall likewise state that
any time before the distraint of personal property, payment of the tax
with surcharges, interests and penalties may be made in accordance
with the next following Section, and unless the tax, surcharges and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 penalties are paid before the expiration of the year for which the tax
is due except when the notice of assessment or special levy is
contested administratively or judicially pursuant to the provisions of
Chapter 3, Title II, Book II of this Code, the delinquent real property
will be sold at public auction, and the title to the property will be
vested in the purchaser, subject, however, to the right of the
delinquent owner of the property or any person having legal interest
therein to redeem the property within one (1) year from the date of
sale.
Collection of unpaid local and real property taxes requires that the
taxpayer be first notified of the basis for his liability. While the law does not
require citing the provision of the ordinance involved, the notice must state
the nature of the tax, fee, or charge, the amount of deficiency, surcharges,
interests and penalties. 50
Notifying the delinquent taxpayer before the availment of both
summary processes is also a settled principle in the collection of internal
revenue taxes. 51 The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) is mandated to
furnish the taxpayer with the preliminary assessment notice (PAN) in order
to allow him or her to dispute the assessment, before it can resort to
distraint/levy of the taxpayer's property. Failure of the BIR to comply with
the notice invalidates the assessments. 52
At the core of these requirements for a valid notice of assessment is
due process. While the lifeblood doctrine gives the State the right to collect
taxes in the most expeditious way, it is not a license to disregard the
constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of his/her property
without due process of law. The rule is that taxes must be collected
reasonably and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. 53
In balancing the scales between the power of the State to tax and its
inherent right to prosecute perceived transgressors of the law on one side,
and the constitutional rights of a citizen to due process of law and the equal
protection of the laws on the other, the scales must tilt in favor of the
individual, for a citizen's right is amply protected by the Bill of Rights under
the Constitution. 54
Here, petitioner's recourse to collect on PPA's other pending tax
liabilities, if there be any, is to notify the latter of the facts and legal basis of
the same. Petitioner cannot simply lump these liabilities with PPA's tax
obligations, which have already been vetted and judicially confirmed. By
garnishing funds beyond the amounts specified in G.R. Nos. 109791 and
143214, petitioner circumvented the established rule, violating PPA's right to
due process. Truly, PPA was deprived of effectively protesting the supposed
assessment because the notice of garnishment did not contain information
on the basis of the taxes.
Hence, it was only proper that petitioner return the amounts released
to it in excess of PPA's liabilities in the aforesaid cases. As found by the CA,
and again undisputed by petitioner, a total amount of Php26,661,552.41 of
PPA's funds were released to petitioner despite its prior payment of its
liabilities under G.R. Nos. 109791 and 143214. This amount should be
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 returned to PPA's account in the DBP.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Court DENIES
the petition for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated 22 November 2016
of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 102578 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, C.J., Caguioa, Carandang and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 35-60.
2. Id. at 70-85; penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, with
Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of this Court) and Edwin
D. Sorongon, concurring.
3. Id. at 64-67.
4. Id. at 258-259.
5. Philippine Ports Authority v. City of Iloilo, 14 July 2003.

6. Philippine Ports Authority v. City of Iloilo, et al., 11 November 2004.

7. Id. at 71.
8. Id. at 247-249.

9. Id. at 250-252.

10. Id. at 250-252.

11. Id. at 260-281.

12. Id. at 72.

13. Id.
14. Id. at 284-289.

15. Id. at 90-99; penned by Presiding Judge Reynaldo G. Ros.

16. G.R. Nos. 154211-12, 158252, 166200, 168272, 170683 & 173392, 22 June
2009, 608 Phil. 9 (2009) [Per J. Velasco, Jr.].

17. Rollo , pp. 290-331.

18. Id. at 332.

19. Id. at 338.

20. Id. at 343.

21. Id. at 364-379.

22. Id. at 84.

23. G.R. No. 155650, 20 July 2006, 528 Phil. 181 (2006) [Per J. Carpio].
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 24. G.R. No. 191109, 18 July 2012, 691 Phil. 476 (2012) [Per J. Mendoza].

25. G.R. No. 169836, 31 July 2007, 555 Phil. 661 (2007) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago].
26. Rollo , pp. 76-77.

27. Id. at 449-457.

28. Id. at 78.

29. Id. at 79-80.

30. Id. at 82-83.

31. G.R. No. 196278, 17 June 2015, 760 Phil. 835 (2015).

32. Rollo , pp. 41-49.

33. Id. at 54.

34. Ignacio v. Office of the City Treasurer of Quezon City, G.R. No. 221620, 11
September 2017, 817 Phil. 1133 (2017) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].

35. Id.
36. Id.

37. Id.

38. Padlan v. Spouses Dinglasan , G.R. No. 180321, 20 March 2013, 707 Phil. 83
(2013) [Per J. Peralta]. See also Ignacio v. Office of the City Treasurer of
Quezon City, supra.
39. Rollo , pp. 271-274.
40. G.R. No. 196278, 17 June 2015, 760 Phil. 835 (2015).

41. Supra note 21.

42. Id.
43. G.R. Nos. 154211-12, 158252, 166200, 168272, 170683 & 173392, 22 June
2009, 608 Phil. 9 (2009).

44. Perla Compania De Seguros, Inc. v. Ramolete, G.R. No. 60887, 13 November
1991, 280 Phil. 530 (1991).
45. Section 9 (c), Rule 39.

46. Perla Compania De Seguros, Inc. v. Ramolete, G.R. No. 60887, 13 November
1991, 280 Phil. 530 (1991).
47. National Power Corp. v. Tarcelo , G.R. No. 198139, 08 September 2014, 742
Phil. 463 (2014) [Per J. Del Castillo].

48. Id. at 81.

49. Id. at 95.

50. Yamane v. BA Lepanto Condominium Corp., G.R. No. 154993, 25 October 2005,
510 Phil. 750 (2005) [Per J. Tinga].
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 51. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Avon Products Manufacturing, Inc., G.R.
Nos. 201398-99 & 201418-19, 03 October 2018 [Per J. Leonen];
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Metro Star Superama, Inc., G.R. No.
185371, 08 December 2010, 652 Phil. 172 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza].

52. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Avon Products Manufacturing, Inc., G.R.

Nos. 201418-19, 03 October 2018 [Per J. Leonen].
53. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp., G.R. Nos.
197945 & 204119, 09 July 2018 [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro].

54. Manila Electric Co. v. City Assessor, G.R. No. 166102, 05 August 2015.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Irregular
alphabetical sequence.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com