REPUBLIC Act (RA) 11576 was enacted 2021, amending Batas Pambansa (BP) 129, or the “Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980,” by revising and increasing the jurisdiction thresholds of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and First-Level Courts, i.e., the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.

Pursuant to RA 1125, the Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), as amended by RA 9282, the CTA has original exclusive jurisdiction over tax collection cases and cases involving criminal offenses. However, when the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than P1 million for tax collection cases, or when the offenses or felonies where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than P1 million or where there is no specified amount claimed, said cases shall be tried by the Regional Trial Courts of the FirstLevel Courts, as the case may be.

Thus, prior to the amendment of BP 129 by RA 11576, when the tax case involves amounts less than P1 million but more than P300,000 or P400,000 in Metro Manila, the RTC had jurisdiction; when the amount involved is P300,000 or P400,000 in Metro Manila, or less, the First-Level Courts had jurisdiction.

Under RA 11576, the RTC now has jurisdiction over cases with amounts in excess of P2 million, and the First-Level Courts have jurisdiction over cases involving amounts equal to or below P2 million.

The change in the jurisdictional amounts for the RTC and the First-Level Courts then seem to cause an overlap with the jurisdiction of the CTA under RA 1125, as amended, since original jurisdiction over tax cases involving the amount of at least P1 million rests with the CTA.

It would now appear that both the CTA and the regular courts have concurrent jurisdiction over tax claims amounting to P1 million and above.

It should be stressed that RA 1125, as amended, is a special law, while BP 129, as amended, is a general law. In Leynes v Commission on Audit, (GR 143596, Dec. 11, 2003), the Supreme Court upheld the well-settled rule in statutory construction that a subsequent general law does not repeal a prior special law on the same subject, unless it clearly appears that the legislature has intended by the latter general act to modify or repeal the earlier special law. Generalia specialibus non derogant (a general law does not nullify a specific or special law). This is so even if the provisions of the general law are sufficiently comprehensive to include what was set forth in the special act.

RA 1125, as amended by RA 9282, is a special law which provides for special rules on jurisdiction of the CTA in cases of tax cases. Thus, it must prevail over the provisions of BP 129, as amended by RA 11576, a general law on the jurisdictions of courts.

In the recent case of People v Mendez (GR 208310-11 & 208662, March 28, 2023), the Supreme Court had the opportunity to reconcile the provisions of RA 1125, as amended by RA 9282, and the provisions of BP 129, as amended by RA 11576.

The Supreme Court held that the proper application of RA 1125, as amended, and BP 129, as amended, with regard to the jurisdiction of the CTA, RTC and First-Level Courts in tax collection and criminal cases shall now be as follows:

a. Exclusive original jurisdiction over tax collection cases involving P1 million or more remains with the CTA;

b. Exclusive original jurisdiction over tax collection cases involving less than P1 million shall be exercised by the proper First-Level Courts;

c. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally decided by the FirstLevel Courts shall continue to be exercised by the RTC;

d. Exclusive original jurisdiction over criminal offenses or felonies where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is P1 million or more remains with the CTA;

e. Exclusive original jurisdiction over criminal offenses or felonies where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than P1 million shall be exercised by the proper First-Level Courts; and

f. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over criminal offenses or felonies originally decided by the First-Level Courts remains with the RTC.

Based on the foregoing, the RTC therefore lost its original jurisdiction over tax cases, whether they be civil or criminal in nature, but can act on those cases as an appellate court, or on appeal from decisions of the First-Level Courts.

Stefan Miguel Raymundo A. del Rosario is a lawyer and an associate of Mata-Perez, Tamayo & Francisco (MTF Counsel). This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for professional advice where the facts and circumstances warrant. If you have any question or comment regarding this article, you may email the author at info@ mtfcounsel.com or visit MTF website at www.mtfcounsel.com.