Iloilo City real property tax stands as SC ruling upheld

By Joseph Bernard A. Marzan

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of a petition challenging Iloilo City’s real property tax ordinance is now final, after the petitioners said Tuesday they will not seek reconsideration.

Lawyer Martin Pison, one of the counsels for the Riverside Group of Companies, confirmed to Daily Guardian that the firm will not file a Motion for Reconsideration after City Legal Officer Joseph Edward Areño announced the city government had received a Notice of Judgment along with the Jan. 28, 2026, decision.

Pison said the firm had not yet received a copy of the ruling as of Tuesday, May 5.

When reports of the decision’s release circulated Monday, May 4, Pison issued a statement through the Riverside Boardwalk’s Facebook page noting that the business had absorbed steep RPT increases.

“There are reports circulating that our [petition] in the Supreme Court against the imposition of real property taxes has been dismissed. We have not received the Supreme Court’s Decision yet,” Pison said Monday.

“In any case, in response to the reports, we would like to clarify that the increase imposed on our companies was not only 300% but 1,400%. In a certain area of our roads which the public use, it was as high as 14,000%,” he added.

“That’s it. We did what we thought was right. We were alone in it, although many supported us quietly, but that’s it, that’s the end of it,” Pison said in a phone interview Tuesday.

“There’s nothing beyond the Supreme Court for appeal, and usually the Supreme Court does not change its mind on a motion for reconsideration. I know that,” he added.

Section 1, Rule 37 of the Rules of Civil Procedure allows an aggrieved party to move for reconsideration within 15 days after notice of a judgment or final order on grounds that the damages awarded are excessive, evidence is insufficient, or the decision is contrary to law.

Speaking to media at his office Tuesday, Areño said one of the main grounds for dismissal was the petitioners’ failure to observe the doctrine of judicial hierarchy.

In the 12-page decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the petitioners were cited for failing to exhaust remedies provided under Republic Act No. 7160, or the Local Government Code of 1991.

Sections 187 and 226 of the Code allow taxpayers to appeal to the Secretary of Justice on the constitutionality or legality of a tax ordinance, or to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals if unsatisfied with an assessment, respectively.

The court also noted that the petitioners had forfeited their opportunity to appeal and had not resorted to the remedy under Sec. 252 of the same Code.

Sec. 252 requires taxpayers to first pay the assessment before filing a protest with the local government’s treasurer.

“They should have questioned it first directly with the Court of Tax Appeals, or even the [Regional Trial Court]. There are facts that need to be determined first, whether or not the increase is of such amount as claimed in the petition,” Areño said.

“Apparently, they lost the period to question the assessment and even appeal, so what they did, they filed it directly to the Supreme Court,” he added.

Pison said the decision to go directly to the Supreme Court was based on precedent, citing previous rulings that allowed parties to bypass lower courts in challenging tax ordinances given the importance of the issue.

He ultimately deferred to the high court’s judgment in applying legal doctrine.

“We knew that there was a procedural obstacle, but we found cases, in certain cases as important as this, especially a tax case, involving Quezon City, where there were exceptions because of the importance of the case. The Supreme Court was lenient. It did not require the observation of the resort to prior remedies like the observation of the hierarchy of courts,” he said.

“The Supreme Court has its choice. It will apply principles in cases where they think it applies, and they will not in cases where they think it should not apply. We accept that, if that is the case, because we don’t know the grounds [of the dismissal] yet,” he added.