S Y S T E M S   P L U S   C O M P U T E R   C O L L E G E   O F CALOOCAN CITY

vs.

LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  OFCALOOCAN CITY[G.R. No. 146382. August 7, 2003]Facts:

Systems Plus Computer College is a non-stocka n d   n o n -p r o fi t   e d u c a ti o n a l   i n s ti t u ti o n .   I t   e n j o y s property tax exemption from the local government oni t s   b u i l d i n g s   b u t   n o t   o n   t h e   p a r c e l s   o f   l a n d   w h i c h petitioner is renting for P5,000 monthly from its sistercompanies, Consolidated Assembly, Inc. (ConsolidatedAs semb l y )   and   Pa i r  Managemen t   and  Deve l opmen tCorporation (Pair Management).Petitioner requested respondent city government of Caloocan to extend tax exemption to the parcels of land claiming that the same were being used actually,d i r e c t l y   and   e x c l u s i v e l y   f o r   educationa l   pu rpo se sp u r s u a n t   t o   A r ti c l e  V I ,   S e c ti o n   2 8 ( 3 )   o f   t h e   1 9 8 7 Consti tution   and   o the r   app l i c ab l e   p rov i s i on s   o f  t he Lo ca l   Gove rnmen t   Code .   S u ch   r eque s t  wa s   den i edb e c a u s e   t h e   o w n e r   o f   th e   p a r c e l   o f   l a n d   w a s   n o t S y s t ems   P l u s   bu t   Con so l i d a t ed  A s semb l y   and   Pa i rManagement. Thereafter, the sister companies enteredi n to   an   a g r eemen t  whe re   t he  l and  wa s   dona ted   t o Systems Plus. Ptr then informed the City Assessor of the donation and sought a reconsideration of the firstdecision.The City Assessor again denied the request, reasoningtha t   t he   donation  was   a  me re   f a r c e   t o   e vade  t hepaymen t   o f   t a xe s ;   t h a t   r e venue   office r s ,   i n   p rope r cases, may disregard the separate corporate entitywhere it serves as a shield for tax evasion; the grantof exemption from taxation rests upon the theory thatan exemption will benefit the body of people, and notupon any idea of lessening the burden of individual orcorporate owners; there is no showing that the parcelso f   l a nd   a r e   a c t ua l l y ,   d i r e c t l y   and   e x c l u s i v e l y   u sede i t h e r   f o r  r e l i g i o u s ,   c h a r i t a b l e ,   o r   e d u c a ti o n a l purposes.Ptr filed a Ptn for mandamus with the RTC.

Issue:

W i l l   m a n d a m u s   l i e   t o   a g a i n s t   p u b l i c respondents?

Ruling:

N o .   M a n d a m u s   i s   d e f i n e d   a s   a   w r i t commanding a tribunal, corporation, board or persont o d o   t h e   a c t   r e q u i r e d t o   b e d o n e   w h e n   i t   o r h e unlawfully neglects the performance of an act whichthe law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from anoffice, trust or station, or unlawfully excludes anotherf rom the use and en joyment o f a r ight or o f f i ce

orwhich  such  other   i s  ent i t led ,   there  be ing  no  otherplain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinarycourse  o f   law.  Where  admin is t rat ive   remedies  areavailable, a petition for mandamus does not lie.Under Section 226 of RA 7160, the remedy of appealto the Local Board of Assessment Appeals is availablefrom an adverse ruling or action of the provincial, cityor municipal assessor in the assessment of property.However, petitioner argues that it is not contesting anya s s e s s m e n t   m a d e   b y   r e s p o n d e n t   C i t y   A s s e s s o r . Pet i t ioner ’s  argument  obv ious ly  proceeds   f rom  i tsmisunders tand ing  o f   the   term assessment .  UnderS e c t i o n   1 9 9 ( f ) ,   T i t l e   I I ,   B o o k   I I ,   o f  t h e   L o c a l Government Code of 1991, assessment is defined ast h e   a c t   o r   p r o c e s s   o f   d e t e r m i n i n g   t h e   v a l u e   o f   a p r o p e r t y ,  o r   p r o p o r t i o n   t h e r e o f   s u b j e c t   t o   t a x , i n c l u d i n g   t h e   d i s c ov e r y ,   l i s t i n g ,

classification

andappra isa l  o f  proper t ies .  V iewed  f rom th is  broaderp e r s p e c t i v e ,   t h e   d e t e r m i n a t i o n   m a d e   b y   t h e respondent City Assessor with regard to the taxabilityof the subject real properties squarely falls within itspower   to  assess  proper t ies   for   taxat ion  purposess u b j e c t   t o  a p p e a l   b e f o r e   t h e   L o c a l   B o a r d   o f   Assessment Appeals.Pet i t ioner  a lso  argues that   i t   i s   seek ing   to  enforce , through the petition for mandamus, a clear legal rightunder the Constitution and the pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code granting tax exemption onproperties actually, directly and exclusively used fore d u c a t i o n a l   p u r p o s e s .   B u t   p e t i t i o n e r   i s   t a k i n g  a n unwarranted  shor tcut .  The  argument  gratu i tous lypresumes the existence of the fact which it must firstprove by competent and sufficient evidence before theCity Assessor. It must be stressed that the authority tor e c e i v e   e v i d e n c e ,   a s   b a s i s   f o r   c l a s s i f i c a t i o n   o f  p r o p e r t i e s   f o r   t a x a t i o n ,   i s   l e g a l l y   v e s t e d   o n   t h e respondent City Assessor whose action is appealable tothe Local Board of Assessment Appeals and the CentralBoard of Assessment Appeals, if necessary.The  pet i t ioner  cannot  bypass   the  author i ty  o f  theconcerned administrative agencies and directly seekredress from the courts even on the pretext of raisinga supposedly pure question of law without violating thedoct r ine  o f  exhaust ion  o f  admin is t rat ive   remedies .Hence, when the law provides for remedies against theaction of an administrative board, body, or officer, asin the case at bar , re l ie f to the cour ts can be madeonly after exhausting all remedies provided therein.Otherwise stated, before seeking the intervention of the courts, it is a precondition that petitioner

shouldf i r s t   a v a i l   o f   a l l   t h e   m e a n s   a f f o r d e d   b y  t h e administrative processes.B e s i d e s ,   m a n d a m u s   d o e s   n o t   l i e  a g a i n s t   t h e respondent City Assessor in the exercise of his functionof assessing properties for taxation purposes. While itsduty to conduct assessments is a ministerial function,the actual exercise thereof is necessarily discretionary.Wel l -set t led i s the ru le that mandamus may not bea v a i l e d   o f   t o   d i r e c t   t h e   e x e r c i s e   o f   j u d g m e n t   o r discretion in a particular way, or to retract or reversean action already taken in the exercise of either.