By Rey E. Requejo

THE Philippine Economic Zone Authority lost its bid to stop the city government of Lapu-Lapu City in Cebu from imposing a business tax on companies in the zone.

The Court of Appeals Second Division said the Pasay City Regional Trial Court did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it denied Peza?s petition, despite the latter?s claim that it stands to suffer ?irreparable injury? if Ordinance No. 070-2007 or the Revised Lapu-Lapu City Revenue Code is implemented.

Besides, the appellate court noted that Peza still has other means available should the city government available remedy should the city government of Lapu-Lapu impose taxes on its entities in the ecozone.

?We are not persuaded. Should it happen that the city government of Lapu-Lapu imposes taxes on entities in the Ecozone where, by law it should not impose, a payment under protest is an available remedy to such entities,? the CA said, in a 30-page decision penned by Associate Justice Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores.

Associate Justices Portia Ali?o Hormachuelos and Hakim Abdulwahid concurred with ruling.

The disputed ordinance covers three economic zones established in Lapu-Lapu City under Peza?s administration and supervision. These are the Mactan Economic Zone, Mactan Economic Zone II and Cebu Light Industry and Science Park.

In its petition with the appellate court, Peza asserted that the implementation of the ordinance would drive away investors in the economic zones with dire consequences on the economic and investment climate in the country.

The CA, however, said the lower court has not actually ruled on the merit of Peza?s petition for declaratory relief and a writ of preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order.

In fact, the CA noted that the Pasay City RTC made itself clear when it stated in its Jan. 21, 2008, decision that it has not yet reached a definitive conclusion whether Peza is entitled to the remedy it seeks.

?Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of power. In the instant case, there is no clear showing of the respondent judge having gravely abused his discretion in issuing the assailed order,? it said.