POWER service provider Cepalco is looking at a "compromise" agreement with the Cagayan de Oro City Government after losing a tax case battle in a regional court.
While an appeal is already in order, a compromise aimed at lowering the mayor's permit fee imposed on all of Cepalco's electric posts is being studied by the electric utility's lawyers, said Atty. Edgardo Uy, Cepalco vice president.
Cepalco is the acronym for Cagayan Electric Power and Light Company, Inc.
"Maybe both parties can agree to lower the fee to P100 per post, but that's just one of the options being looked into by the company right now," Uy told Sun.Star in a phone interview.
And while they are in a mood for negotiation, Uy said this does not "preclude Cepalco from exercising its right to appeal the case all the way to the Supreme Court."
The P500 per electric post fee is contained in a 2005 ordinance, which the company wants the court to declare null and void for being "unlawful" and "illegal."
RTC Branch 17 Judge Florencia D. Sealana-Abbu in a ruling issued last Wednesday maintained that the local government has primary jurisdiction on the issue-effectively remanding the case back to the local government.
Uy said a motion for reconsideration was immediately filed last week, adding that their next move would be to appeal the decision with the Court of Appeals should they get another hostile ruling from the court.
According to Uy, Cepalco has more than 17,000 electric poles within Cagayan de Oro--translating to an approximate P8,500,000 in annual obligation, on top of the real property and business taxes it is paying to the city.
The company also provides electric services in certain parts of Misamis Oriental.
In its petition, Cepalco said the ordinance is "unlawful and illegal for being violative of the fundamental principle that fees, charges, and other impositions shall not be unjust, excessive, oppressive or confiscatory."
"
But the court held that the issue of whether or not the tax is excessive, oppressive, or confiscatory is a factual issue that is best addressed to the sound discretion of the government agency concerned."
Possible flaws in the ordinance can be corrected through local government-led
public hearings having "primary jurisdiction" on the matter, it said. The court also upheld "the power of the local government units to create their own sources of revenue being constitutional and therefore, it cannot interfere in the decision making of the LGUs concerned by dictating upon them to have the ordinance amended, modified, or annulled as the case maybe." (With reports from CIO)
