bat. powercopr vs bat.docx
TRANSCRIPT
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaSECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. 152675 April 28, 2004BATANGAS POWER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.BATANGAS CIT !"# NATIONA$ POWER CORPORATION, respondents. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! G.R. No. 152771 April 28, 2004NATIONA$ POWER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.%ON. RICAR&O R. ROSARIO, i" 'i( )!p!)i*+ !( Pr,(i#i"- ./#-,, RTC, Br. 66, M!0!*i Ci*+1 BATANGAS CIT GO2ERNMENT1 ATT. TEO&U$3O &EGUITO, i" 'i( )!p!)i*+ !( C'i,4 $,-!l O44i),r, B!*!"-!( Ci*+1 !"# BEN.AMIN PARGAS, i" 'i( )!p!)i*+ !( Ci*+ Tr,!(/r,r, B!*!"-!( Ci*+, respondents.DECISIONPUNO, J.:"efore us are t#o $%& consolidated petitions for revie# under Rule '( of the Rules of Civil Procedure, see)in* to set aside the rulin*s of the Re*ional +rial Court of Ma)ati in its ,ebruar- %., %//% Decision in Civil Case No. //!%/(.+he facts sho# that in the earl- 011/2s, the countr- suffered fro3 a cripplin* po#er crisis. Po#er outa*es lasted 4!0% hours dail- and po#er *eneration #as badl- needed. 5ddressin* the proble3, the *overn3ent, throu*h the National Po#er Corporation $NPC&, sou*ht to attract investors in po#er plant operations b- providin* the3 #ith incentives, one of #hich #as throu*h the NPC2s assu3ption of pa-3ent of their taes in the "uild Operate and +ransfer $"O+& 5*ree3ent.On 6une %1, 011%, Enron Po#er Develop3ent Corporation $Enron& and petitioner NPC entered into a ,ast +rac) "O+ Pro7ect. Enron a*reed to suppl- a po#er station to NPC and transfer its plant to the latter after ten $0/& -ears ofoperation. Section 00./% of the "O+ 5*ree3ent provided that NPC shall be responsible for the pa-3ent of all taes that 3a- be i3posed on the po#er station, ecept inco3e taes and per3it fees. Subse8uentl-, Enron assi*ned its obli*ation under the "O+ 5*ree3ent to petitioner "atan*as Po#er Corporation $"PC&.On Septe3ber 09, 011%, "PC re*istered itself #ith the "oard of Invest3ents $"OI& as a pioneer enterprise. On Septe3ber %9, 011%, the "OI issued a certificate of re*istration0 to "PC as a pioneer enterprise entitled to a ta holida- for a period of si $:& -ears. +he construction of the po#er station in respondent "atan*as Cit- #as then co3pleted. "PC operated the station.On October 0%, 0114, "atan*as Cit- $the cit-, for brevit-&, thru its le*al officer +eodulfo 5. De*uito, sent a letter to "PC de3andin* pa-3ent of business taes and penalties, co33encin* fro3 the -ear 011' as provided under Ordinance ;I or the 011% "atan*as Cit- +a Code.% "PC refused to pa-, citin* its ta!ee3pt status as a pioneer enterprise for si $:& -ears under Section 099 $*& of the ERS.IIRESPONDEN+ COBR+ 5C+ED ?I+> =R5VE 5"BSE O, DISCRE+ION 5MOBN+IN= +O EN I+ 5R"I+R5RIIC> E;EMP+S EN5+ION5< =OVERNMEN+, I+S 5=ENCIES 5ND INS+RBMEN+5E IMPOSI+ION O, E+5;ES, ,EES OR C>5R=ES O, 5ND CIND.EIIIRESPONDEN+ COBR+ 5C+ED ?I+> =R5VE 5"BSE O, DISCRE+ION 5MOBN+IN= +O EN I+ ERRONEOBS+ +O "E EN6OINED.In =.R. No. 0(%:.(, "PC also contends that the trial court erred@ 0& in holdin* it liable for pa-3ent of business taeseven if it is undisputed that NPC has alread- assu3ed pa-3ent thereofA and, %& in rulin* that "PC2s :!-ear ta holida- co33enced on the date of its re*istration #ith the "OI as a pioneer enterprise.+he issues for resolution are@0. #hether "PC2s :!-ear ta holida- co33enced on the date of its "OI re*istration as a pioneer enterprise or on the date of its actual co33ercial operation as certified b- the "OIA%. #hether the trial court had 7urisdiction over the petition for in7unction a*ainst "atan*as Cit-A and,9. #hether NPC2s ta ee3ption privile*es under its Charter #ere #ithdra#n b- Section 019 of the