COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ONCHO PHILIPPINES INCORPORATED

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC ********* COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB No. 2059 REVENU E, (CTA Case No. 9442) Pet itioner, Present: - versus - DEL ROSARIO, P.J. I CASTANEDA, JR., UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN , MANAHAN , BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ. ON CHO PHILIPPINES Promulgated: INCORPORATED, OCT 3 0 2020 Respondent. _-oft - (!_~:~- ~-�~ X- - - - ---- - -- - -- - - - -- - - ---- -- - - - - - - X DECISION UY, J.: Before the Court En Bane is a Petition for Review filed on May 21 , 20191 by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue against Oncho Philippines Incorporated, praying for the reversal and setting aside of the Decision dated January 14, 2019 and Resolution dated April 5, 20192, both rendered by the Special Second Division of this Court (Court in Division) in CTA Case No. 9442, entitled "Oncho Philippines Incorporated, Petitioner, vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent". The dispositive portions thereof respectively read : Decision dated January 14, 2019 : "WHEREFORE, premises considered , the instant Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. 1 EB Docket, pp. 6 to 12 2 Penned by Associate Justice Juanita C. Castaneda, and concurred by Associate Justice Catherine T. Manahan, EB Docket, pp. 16 to 41 ; and pp. 43-49, respectivelyfD"

DECISION CTA EB No. 2059 (CTA Case No. 9442) Accordingly, respondent is ORDERED TO REFUND to petitioner the amount of P2,563,990.68, representing its excess and unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales for the four quarters of CY 2014. SO ORDERED." Resolution April 5, 2019: "WHEREFORE, finding no cogent reason to reverse the ruling in the assailed Decision, respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED." THE FACTS Petitioner is the duly appointed Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (or Commissioner) who has the power to decide disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) or other laws or portions thereof administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). He holds office at the BIR National Office Building, Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City. On the other hand, respondent Oncho Philippines Incorporated (or Oncho) is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with principal office address at 41h Floor G.A. Yupangco Building, 339 Gil Puyat Ave. corner N. Garcia St., Makati City. It is a value-added tax (VAT)- registered entity with Taxpayer Identification No. 003-982-227-000, as evidenced by its Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Certificate of Registration No. OCN9RC0000371397 dated July 22, 2013. In its Amended Articles of Incorporation, Oncho's primary purposes are as follows: "To the extent permitted by law, to carry on and conduct general as well as specialty (including but not limited to air-condition, fire-protection, and plumbing systems) construction business except locally funded government projects, including the provision of structural mechanical, electrical and other construction, erection, installation('O

DECISION CTA EB No. 2059 (CTA Case No. 9442) repair, and related services or otherwise engage in any related work or residential, industrial, and commercial buildings; to manufacture or otherwise acquire and furnish such buildings with tools and equipment connected therewith or required therefore; to manufacture, produce, adapt and prepare and deal in or with any materials, articles or things incidental to or required for or useful in connection with any of such activity; and generally to carry on any other business which can be advantageously pursued in conjunction with or incidental to any of the above purposes." For calendar year (CY) 2014, Oncho filed with the BIR its Monthly VAT Declarations, as follows: MONTHLY VAT DATE FILED DECLARATION February 12, 2014 (2014) March 13, 2014 April15, 2014 January May 15,2014 February June 16, 2014 July, 14, 2014 March August 14, 2014 April May September 17, 2014 June October 15, 2014 July November 17, 2014 ' August December 17, 2014 September January 26, 2015 October November December Oncho also filed its Quarterly VAT Returns for CY 2014 with the BIRon the following dates: QUARTERLY VAT DATE FILED RETURN (2014) April15, 2014� First Quarter July 14, 20144 (Amended) Second Quarter October 15, 20145 Third Quarter January 26, 2015 (Amended)b Fourth Quarter 3 Exhibit "P-8", Division Docket (CTA Case No. 9442)- Vol. III, pp. 1169 to 1170. 4 Exhibit "P-11 ",Division Docket (CTA Case No. 9442)- Vol. III, pp. 1175 to 1176. 5 Exhibit "P-14", Division Docket (CTA Case No. 9442)- Vol. III, pp. 1183 to 1184. 6 Exhibit "P-17", Division Docket (CTA Case No. 9442)- Vol. III, pp. 1191 to 119~

DECISION CTA EB No. 2059 (CTA Case No. 9442) Oncho's VAT Returns showed excess input VAT payments on its importation and domestic purchases of goods and services in the aggregate amount of P7,486,676.34. Thus, it filed its administrative claim for refund, together with all the supporting documents, with BIR Revenue District Office No. 49 on March 31,2016. Subsequently, Oncho filed a Petition for Review before the Court in Division on August 25, 2016 docketed as CTA Case No. 9442. On October 28, 2016, the Commissioner filed his Answer in said case, interposing special and affirmative defenses. According to the Commissioner, it is incumbent upon Oncho to show that it has complied with the provision of Section 204 (C) in relation to Section 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Allegedly, Oncho's claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate was not fully substantiated by proper documents, such as sales invoices, official receipts and other supporting documents. On November 16, 2016, Oncho filed its Reply, alleging that the subject claim was fully substantiated and properly documented; and that it has complied with the provisions of Sections 112 (A) and (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and existing rules. Thereafter, the Commissioner filed his Pre-Trial Brief on January 4, 2017, while Oncho filed its Pre- Trial Brief on January 13, 2017. After the Pre-Trial Conference held on February 16, 20177, the parties filed their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues on March 8, 20178. The Court in Division issued a Pre-Trial Order on March 15, 2017 and terminated the pre-trial9. During trial, Oncho presented Flordeliza J. Bondad, its Accounting Manager and Michael L. Aguirre, the Court-commissioned Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA), as its witnesses. 7 Minutes of Hearing on February 16, 2017, Division Docket (CTA Case No. 9442)- Vol. II, p. 844 8 Division Docket (CTA Case No. 9442)- Vol. II, pp. 853-858 9 Division Docket (CTA Case No. 9442)- Vol. II, pp.860-8611l

DECISION CTA EB No. 2059 (CTA Case No. 9442) On July 14, 2017, Oncho filed its Formal Offer of Evidence10. In the Resolution11 dated September 15, 2017, the Court in Division admitted some of the evidence, but denied the others for failure to submit the duly-marked exhibits; and for not being found in the records. Subsequently, Oncho filed a Motion for Reconsideration (of September 15, 2017 Resolutionyt2 on October 2, 2017, stating that the non-submission of the duly marked exhibits was an honest inadvertence in the preparation of the formal offer of evidence; and that it has no intention to delay the proceedings. In the Resolution dated November 24, 2017, the Court admitted all the exhibits, except Exhibit "P-38" for failure to submit the duly marked document. On the part of the Commissioner, his counsel manifested during the hearing held on September 18, 201713 that he will not present any witness. The Court in Division submitted the case for decision on January 22, 2018, after the filing of Oncho's Memorandum on October 18, 2017, and the Commissioner's Memorandum on December 27, 2017. In the assailed Decision dated January 14, 201914, the Court in Division partially granted the Petition for Review in CTA Case No. 9442 and ruled that Oncho is entitled to the refund of its excess and unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales for the four quarters of CY 2014 amounting to P2,563,990.68. On January 31, 2019, the Commissioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration15 arguing that Oncho's sales to BeltonTotoku Philippines, Inc. and Hadoron Studio, Inc. should not be considered as zero-rated sales since their Philippine Economic Zone Authority 10 Division Docket (CTA Case No. 9442)- Vol. III, pp. 1025 to 1037. 11 Division Docket (CTA Case No. 9442)- Vol. III, pp. 1152 to 1153. 12 Division Docket (CTA Case No. 9442)- Vol. III, pp. 1160 to 1164. 13 Division Docket (CTA Case No. 9442)- Vol. III, pp. 1154 to 1155 14 Division Docket (CTA Case No. 9442)- Vol. III, pp. 1314 to 1339. 15 Division Docket (CTA Case No. 9442)- Vol. III, pp. 1340 to 1345~

DECISION CTA EB No. 2059 (CTA Case No. 9442) (PEZA) Certificates of Registration, were not properly identified and marked; that Oncho failed to prove or substantiate with proper documentary evidence its claim for refund or tax credit of input VAT on its domestic purchases of services with official receipts and input VAT on its domestic purchases of goods with invoices; and that taxes paid and collected are presumed to be made in accordance with the laws and regulations, hence, not creditable or refundable. Oncho filed its Comment!Opposition 16 stating that all the documentary exhibits that were formally offered were duly marked, presented, shown and identified during the proceedings in this instant case; and that documents submitted, or the lack thereof, at the administrative level of a claim for refund of unutilized input VAT is irrelevant when the claim has already reached the Court after inaction on the part of the Commissioner. On A~ril 5, 2019, the Court in Division issued the assailed Resolution 1 , denying the Commissioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration for lack of merit. On May 6, 2019, the Commissioner filed before this Court En Bane a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, 18 praying for an extension of fifteen (15) days from May 7, 2019, or until May 22, 2019, within which to file his Petition for Review. The same was granted and the Commissioner was given a final and non- extendible period of fifteen (15) days from May 7, 2019, or until May 22, 2019, within which to file the said Petition for Review. 19 On May 21, 2019, the Commissioner filed the instant Petition for Reviev?0. On June 14, 2019, Oncho filed its Comment/Opposition (To; Petitioner's Petition for Review dated 21 May 2019r. In the Resolution22 dated September 3, 2019, the Court En Bane gave due course to the instant Petition for Review and ordered the parties to file their respective memoranda. Oncho filed its Memorandum23 on October 11, 2019, while the Commissioner, 16 Division Docket (CTA Case No. 9442)- Vol. III, pp. 1349 to 1358. 17 Division Docket (CTA Case No. 9442)- Vol. III, pp. 1361 to 1367. 18 EB Docket, pp. I to 3. 19 Minute Resolution dated May 14,2019, EB Docket, p. 5. 20 EB Docket, pp. 6 to 12. 21 EB Docket, pp. 55 to 69. 'ld 22 EB Docket, pp. 71 to 72. 23 EB Docket, pp. 73 to 91

DECISION CTA EB No. 2059 (CTA Case No. 9442) through his counsel, filed a Manifestation (In Lieu of Submission of Memoranduml4 on October 16, 2019, stating that he is adopting all the arguments and defenses stated in his Petition for Review as his Memorandum. Thereafter, this case was submitted for decision in the Resolution25 dated November 27, 2019. Hence, this Decision. GROUNDS FOR THE PETITION The Commissioner raises the following sole issue in the instant Petition for Review, to wit: "WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION OF THE CTA ERRED IN PARTIALLY GRANTING RESPONDENT'S PETITION FOR REVIEW AND ORDERING THE REFUND IN THE AMOUNT OF P7,486,676.34 REPRESENTING RESPONDENT'S ALLEGED UNUTILIZED EXCESS INPUT VAT ON ITS LOCAL PURCHASES OF GOODS AND SERVICES ATTRIBUTABLE TO ZERO-RATED SALES FOR THE PERIOD 01 JANUARY 2017 TO 31 26 DECEMBER 2014."27 Commissioner's arguments: The Commissioner argues that the Court in Division erred in ordering the refund of Oncho's unutilized input VAT on its local purchases of goods and services attributable to zero-rated sales in the amount of P7,486,676.34. Allegedly, the PEZA certificates of BeltonTotoku Philippines, Inc. and Hadoron Studio, Inc., which are clients of Oncho, were not properly identified and marked and that consequently the Commissioner was not able to check and verify these certificates with the original documents. Allegedly, said documents were not 24 EB Docket, pp. 92 to 94. 25 EB Docket, pp. 97 to 98. 26 Should be 2014. 27 Petition for Review, EB Docket, p. 8.~

DECISION CIA EB No. 2059 (CTA Case No. 9442) submitted at the administrative level. As such, the sales made by Oncho to said clients should not be considered as zero-rated sales and that the input VAT attributable to such sales should be disallowed. Further, the Commissioner insists that Oncho failed to prove or substantiate its claim for refund or tax credit of input VAT on its domestic purchases of services with official receipts and input VAT on its domestic purchases of goods with invoices, thus the same should also be disallowed. Finally, the Commissioner asserts that taxes paid and collected are presumed to be made in accordance will laws and regulations, hence, not refundable or creditable. It is an established principle that refunds and tax credits are in the nature of tax exemptions and thus, must be construed strictly against the taxpayer. Oncho 's counter-arguments: Oncho's argues that the instant Petition for Review should denied outright for having no factual and legal merit. Contrary to the allegation of the Commissioner, only the amount of P2,563,990.68 was ordered by the Curt in Division to be refunded and not P7,486,676.34. According to Oncho, the Court in Division correctly held that it is entitled to its claim for VAT refund, albeit in a reduced amount. As regards the Commissioner's contention that he was not able to check and verify the original of the PEZA certificates as these were not submitted during the administrative claim nor pre-marked during the Commissioner's Hearing, Oncho points out that all documentary exhibits that were formally offered were duly marked, presented, shown and identified during the proceedings in the instant case. Oncho maintains that the Commissioner had all the opportunity to question or raises an issue the documentary evidence presented and/or submitted, including the PEZA certificates, invoices and official receipts; and that the Commissioner deliberately failed to do so despite its active participation in all the proceedings.,JO'

DECISION CTA EB No. 2059 (CTA Case No. 9442) Further, Oncho asserts that the amount being claimed as unutilized input VAT on domestic purchases of goods and services for the period January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 were properly documented. THE COURT EN BANC'S RULING The instant Petition for Review is without merit. After a careful review of the issues and arguments raised by the Commissioner, this Court notes that these are mere reiterations of what have been considered and passed upon by the Court Division in the assailed Decision dated January 14, 2019, and Resolution dated April 5, 2019. At the outset, the Court En Bane finds erroneous, the Commissioner's claim that the amount of unutilized excess input VAT ordered by the Court in Division to be refunded to Oncho is P7,486,676.34. A perusal of the assailed Decision shows that only input VAT amounting to P2,563,990.68 and not P7,486,676.34, was ordered refunded to Oncho. The Court in Division correctly found the sales by Oncho to BeltonTotoku Philippines, Inc. and Hadoron Studio, Inc. as zero- rated sales. The Commissioner insists that Oncho's sales to BeltonTotoku Philippines, Inc. and Hadoron Studio, Inc. should not be considered as zero-rated sales, since the PEZA certificates of these entities were not properly identified and marked during the Commissioner's Hearing and that these certificates were not submitted during the administrative claim. Consequently, the corresponding input VAT attributable to said sales should allegedly be disallowed. We are not persuaded. A careful examination of the records of the case shows that the PEZA certificates of BeltonTotoku Philippines, Inc. and HadoronJ

DECISION CTA EB No. 2059 (CTA Case No. 9442) Studio, Inc., were clearly identified by the Court-commissioned ICPA, Michael L. Aguirre, in his Judicial Affidavit28 as follows: "13. Question: In your verification of Petitioner's zero- rated sales for the calendar year 2014, what were your findings and observations? Answer: In performing the foregoing procedures for the verification of the Petitioner's zero-rated sales for 2014, below are or findings and observations: I have reviewed the documents supporting the zero- rated transactions for services rendered to PEZA- registered entities including official receipts and PEZA certifications. Based on the result of my audit, such zero-rated receipts of P104,689,860.41 were properly supported by relevant documents which were compliant with the invoicing requirements of NIRC. Below is a full list of customers with copy of PEZA certificates: Customer TIN Zero-rated Copy of PEZA Sales Certificates BeltonTotoku 202-273-484 008-183-327 p 15,268,240.00 Exhibit P-7-A-ICPA Canon Business Machines 17,308,584.20 004-475-592 Exhibit P-7-B-ICPA (Philippines), Inc. 003-981-506 17,268,115.00 008-447-878 5,636,260.25 Exhibit P-7-C-ICPA Epson Precision (Phils.), 006-968-441 4,439, 795.91 20,300,146.90 Exhibit P-7-D-ICPA Inc. 008-654-170 Exhibit P-7-E-ICPA 13,517,718.14 Gotoh Philippines Corp. 004-509-867 Exhibit P-7-F-ICPA 7,210,000.00 Hadoron Studio, Inc. 008-535-356 Exhibit P-7-G.1 to 3, 741 ,000.00 G.2-ICPA Mspecialty Printing 1'"1 04,689,860.41 Exhibit P-7-H.1 to Philippines, Inc. H.3-ICPA OB Kogyo (Philippines), Inc. Exhibit P-7-1.1 to 1.3- ICPA Shindengen Philippines Corp. Siix Ems Philippines, Inc. Total Sales xxx xxx xxx" (Emphasis supplied.) It is evident from the foregoing that contrary to the allegation of the Commissioner, the PEZA certificates of BeltonTotoku, Inc. and 28 Exhibit "P-48", Division Docket (CTA Case No. 9442)- Vol. III, pp. 882 to 88~

DECISION CTA EB No. 2059 (CTA Case No. 9442) Page II of 15 Hadoron Studio, Inc., which form part of the ICPA report, were duly identified by the ICPA during his direct examination. As regards the Commissioner's assertion that the subject PEZA certificates were not submitted during the administrative claim, and hence should not be admitted as evidence, the same deserves scant consideration. It must be emphasized that the submission of complete supporting documents by the taxpayer-claimant in the administrative level is presumed, in the absence of contrary evidence, as held in the case of CBK Power Company Limited vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 29 to wit: "Bearing in mind that the burden to prove entitlement to a tax refund is on the taxpayer, it is presumed that in order to discharge its burden, petitioner had attached complete supporting documents necessary to prove its entitlement to a refund in its application, absent any evidence to the contrary." In view of this presumption and there being no evidence to the contrary, the documents attached to Oncho's administrative claim for refund filed on March 31, 201630 are deemed complete documents. But even granting that We can validly ignore the said presumption and find that Oncho indeed did not present or attach the complete supporting documents in its administrative claim, the Commissioner can always immediately decide a refund claim, in view of the recognized principle that the Commissioner ought to know the records of all taxpayers.31 More importantly, the CTA being a court of record, the cases filed before it are litigated de novo and party litigants should prove every minute aspect of its case. 32 It is not precluded from accepting 29 G.R. Nos. 198729-30, January 15,2014. 30 Exhibit "P-3", Division Docket (CTA Case No. 9442)- Vol. II, pp. 503 to 519. 31 BPI-Family Savings Bank, Inc. vs. Court ofAppeals, et al., G.R. No. 122480, April 12, 2000; and Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Ironcon Builders and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 180042, February 8, 2010. 32 Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. Manila Mining Corporation, G.R. No. 153204, {10 August 31, 2005.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2059 (CTA Case No. 9442) Oncho's evidence assuming these were not presented at the administrative level. 33 The question of whether the evidence submitted by a party is sufficient to warrant the granting of its prayer lies within the sound discretion and judgment of the Court. 34 Oncho was able to substantiate its input VAT on its domestic purchases of goods and services. The Commissioner argues that Oncho failed to substantiate with proper documentary evidence its domestic purchases of services with official receipts and its domestic purchases of goods with invoices. Further, the Commissioner asserts that those claims which do not have authority to print; claims that are not valid source of input VAT; documents which are out of period; documents which entry are unreadable and those purchases which are unsupported, should likewise be disallowed. We are not convinced. It bears noting that the grounds relied upon by the Commissioner for the disallowance of Oncho's claimed input VAT had already been considered by the Court in Division. A perusal of the assailed Decision shows that the following input VAT were disallowed for the reasons stated below: Disallowances: p 4,499.17 ~2.302,933.74 Per /CPA Repott 472.61 212.19 1. Lack of Information/noncompliance with invoicing requirements of Official Receipt 169,102.85 105,863.36 i. Quantity and unit cost not indicated 170,626.14 ii. VAT not separately indicated 2. No Authority to Print 56,738.52 3. Not a valid source of input VAT 1,795,418.90 4. Out of period documents 5. Unreadable entries in the documents 6. Amount per source documents not tally with schedule 7. Unsupported purchases 33 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 180290, September 29, 2014. ftJ 34 Pilipinas Total Gas, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 207112, December 8, 2015.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2059 (CTA Case No. 9442) Per Court in Division's further verification: p 336,831.89 2,491,962.22 12,378.75 1"4,794,895.96 1. Supported by documents other than VAT official receipts 1,838, 759.28 2. Supported by documents other than VAT invoices 3. Supported by computer-generated VAT invoices/official 140,738.10 receipts with alterations/insertions, but without 3,210.86 countersignature 4. Supported by VAT invoices/official receipts with incorrect 98,055.15 or without TIN /with correction but without countersignature 61,988.19 5. Supported by VAT invoices/official receipts issued not in the name of Oncho 6. Supported by VAT invoices/official receipts but the VAT amount was not separately indicated 7. Supported by invalid sales invoices/official receipts TOTAL DISALLOWANCES Based from the foregoing, input VAT in the total amount of P4,794,895.96 were disallowed by the Court in Division for failure to comply with the substantiation requirements under Sections 11 O(A), 113(A) and (B), in relation to Sections 237 and 238 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Considering that the Court in Division made the foregoing factual findings, it behooves upon the Commissioner to specifically pinpoint any error, or validly argue against the said findings. The mere general averment of the Commissioner that Oncho failed to substantiate with proper documentary evidence its domestic purchases of services and goods, is not sufficient to convince the Court En Bane that a reversible error was committed by the Court in Division as the same is unsubstantiated, too vague, highly speculative, and uncertain. Further, it is a basic rule that he who alleges must prove what is alleged. 35 In this case, the Commissioner failed to discharge his burden of disproving the findings of facts made by the Court in Division. Findings of fact by the Court in Division are not to be disturbed without any showing of grave abuse of discretion considering that the members of the Division are in the best position to analyze the documents presented by the parties. 36 35 Eastern Assurance and Surety Corporation vs. Con-Field Construction and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 159731, April22, 2008. 36 Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Team (Phils.) Energy Corporation (formerly Mirant (Phils.) Energy Corporation), G.R. No. 188016, January 14, 2015 citing Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. /"0 No. 122605, April 30, 2001, 357 SCRA 441, 445-446. Refer also to Rhombus Energy, Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 206362, August 1, 2018.

DECISION CIA EB No. 2059 (CTA Case No. 9442) Thus, the ruling of the Court in Division, that Oncho was able to substantiate its claim for VAT refund, albeit in the reduced amount of P2,563,990.68, must be sustained. WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated January 14, 2019 and Resolution dated April 5, 2019, both rendered by the Court in Division in CTA Case No. 9442 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ER~P.UY Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice Siw~C.~~,~. ;l.,. ~ -L/L__ JlJANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR. MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice \Associate Justice ~T~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN JEAN IVIA9fl Associate Justice

DECISION CTA EB No. 2059 (CTA Case No. 9442) CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. Presiding Justice