COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PETRON CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY En Bane COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 3114 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case Nos. 10232, 10266 & 10267) Petitioner, - versus - PETRON CORPORATION, Respondent. x --------------------- x PETRON CORPORATION, CTA EB NO. 3115 Petitioner, (CTA Case Nos. 10232, 10266 & 10267) -versus - Members: COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.J , BACORRO-VILLENA, Respondent. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ Promulgated: UL 0 2 X---- -- --------------------- - -----------------------X DECISION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: Before the Court En Bane are two consolidated Petitions for Review docketed as CTA EB No. 3114 and CTA EB No. 3115, both assailing the Decision, dated August 15, 2024, ("Assailed Decision"), and Resolution~

DECISI(l:\ CTA FR Nos_ 311-1. & 3115 (CT:\ Case ~os. 10232. I0266 & 10267) dated March 11, 2025, ("Assailed Resolution"), promulgated by this Court's First Division in the case docketed as CTA Case Nos. 10232, 10266 & 10267, the dispositive portions of which respectively read: Decision dated August 15, 2024: WHEREFORE. with the foregoing premises. the consolidated Petitions for Review filed by petitioner Petron Corporation on 26 December 2019 (CTA Case No. l 0232). ll \!larch 2020 (CTA Case No. I0267), and 11 March 2020 (CTA Case No. 10266). respectively, are hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly. respondent is ORDERED TO REFUND OR ISSUE TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner the amount of P727,332,597.00. representing petitioner's erroneously paid excise taxes for its locally-produced unleaded gasoline fuel and diesel fuel oil sold to Micro Dragon Petroleum, Inc .. a tax-exempt entity. for the period ti�om 0 l Janumy 2018 to 30 September 2018, or the l st to 3'd Quarters ofTY 2018. SO ORDERED. Resolution dated March 11, 2025: WHEREFORE. premises considered. respondent's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 15 August 2024)" and petitioner's "Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated August 15. 2024)" are DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Parties to the Case1 The Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR") is sued in his official capacity, having been duly appointed and empowered to perf01m the duties of his or her office, including, among others, the duty to act on and approve claims for refund as provided by law. He may be served with summons, notices and other court processes at the BIR National Office Building, Diliman, Quezon City. Petron Corporation ("Petron") is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with principal office address at San Miguel Head Office Complex, 40 San Miguel Avenue, Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila. It is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") under Company Registration No. 31171. It is also registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue ("BIR") under Taxpayer Identification No. ("TIN") 000-168-801-00000 and authorized to use Point of Sale ("POS") Machines linked to Computerized Accounting System ("CAS") with Permit No. 1709_0124_PTU_CAS_000172 dated 29 September 201 ~ 1 Assailed Decision. pp. 3 to 4.

IJECISIO' CL\ I:.B l\:os. 311-J. & 3115 (CT,\ Case Nos. 10232. !0266 & 10267) Page 3 of \3 Pursuant to its Amended Articles of Incorporation ("AOI"), Petron is engaged in the business of acquiring, refining, manufacturing, and trading petroleum and various mineral products. It operates the Petron Bataan Refinery ("PBR"), where crude oil is processed into a full range of petroleum products, including unleaded gasoline fuel and diesel fuel oil. The Facts The relevant antecedent facts of the case as culled from the Assailed Decision are as follows: 2 [PetronJ produces unleaded gasoline fuel and diesel fuel oil. which are stored and commingled with imported unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel oil. as allowed by Commingling Permit No. (P)-028-0 1-18-22867 dated 19 January 2018. with validity until 31 December 2018. [Petron] pays excise taxes on the locally-produced unleaded gasoline fuel and diesel fuel oil before their removal fi�om the PBR and delivered either directly to its customers or to its various depots for eventual sale and delivery to various customers. including tax-exempt entities. During the period from 01 January 2018 to 30 September 2018. [Petron] locally-produced unleaded gasoline fuel and diesel fuel oil. Pursuant to Section 130 (A) (2). in relation to Section 148 (f) and (i) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997. as amended. [Petron] allegedly paid the corresponding excise taxes to the BIR. In sum. the excise tax payments from the sale of locally-produced unleaded gasoline fuel and diesel fuel oil to [Micro Dragon Petroleum. Inc. (""MDPI"")]. an entity that is exempt fi"om direct and indirect taxes by law, during the JS1 to 3"1 Quat1ers of TY 2018 [in the aggregate amount of 1"773. 900.222.00]. Since the excise taxes paid on locally-produced unleaded gasoline fuel and diesel fuel oil during the 1'1 to 3'd Quarters ofTY 2018 pertain to those sold to MDPI. a tax-exempt entity. the total amount of 1"773.900.222.00 was allegedly paid erroneously or illegally. [Petron] then tiled three (3) separate Applications for Tax Credits/Refunds (BIR Form No. 1914) with the BIR. along with accompanying Letter-Requests for the refund or issuance of a TCC for the excise taxes paid on its locally-produced unleaded gasoline fuel and diesel fuel oil. which were subsequently sold and delivered to MDPI ... On August 15, 2024, the Comi's First Division promulgated the Assailed Decision, partially granting Petron' s claim for refund of erroneously paid excise taxes for its locally-produced unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel oiJr- 2 !dat4to7.

DECISIO:'\ CTA�B:\o:-..3!!-J.&3!!5(CTACascl'\os.l02.3::!.10266& 1()267) Page..J.ofl3 sold to MDPI, a tax-exempt entity. The same was received by Petron and the Office ofthe Solicitor General ("OSG") on September 5, 2024 and September 6, 2024, respectively.3 Then, the CIR filed his Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 15 August 2024) on September I0, 2024, while Petron's Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 15 August 2024) filed on September 20, 2024.4 On March 11, 2025, the Court in Division promulgated the Assailed Resolution, denying both parties' Motions, which was received by the Petron and the OSG on March 18, 2025 and March 20, 2025, respectively.5 Proceedings Before this Court On March 28, 2025, the CIR filed his Petition for Review,6 praying that the Assailed Decision and Resolution be reversed and set aside, and that another decision be rendered denying the claim for refund. The case was docketed as CTA EB No. 3114. On the other hand, Petron filed its Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on March 31, 2025/ and the case was docketed as CTA EB No. 3115. In a Minute Resolution, dated April2, 2025,8 the Court, subject to the condition that the motion for extension was filed on time, granted Petron a final and non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from April 2, 2025, or until April 17, 2025, within which to file its Petition for Review. Petron then filed its Petition for Review on April21, 2025, through registered mail.9 On April 24, 2025, this Court En Bane ordered the consolidation of CTA EB No. 3115 with CTA EB No. 3114, the case bearing the lower docket number. 10 The CIR filed his Comment on Petron's Petition on June 2, 2025, while Petron filed its Comment/Opposition to CIR's Petition on June 13, 2025J,.l.....-- Notice of Decision. Division Docket- Vol. IV. p. 1544. ' Assailed Resolution. p. I 5 Notice of Resolution. Division Docket- Vol. IV. p. I66 I. 6 EB Docket (CTA EB No. 3114). pp. I to 15. EB Docket (CTA EB No. 3115). pp. I to 10. >~ /d.atll. 9 /d. at 13 to 49. 10 EB Docket (CTA EB No. 3114). p. 82. " /d. at 84 to 88 and 91 to 120. respectively.

DECISIO'< CTAEB'\Jo~.3ll-1-&3115(CT.\Casel'\os.I0.:!32_\0266& 10267) Page 5 llf 13 In a Minute Resolution dated July 2, 2025, this Court En Bane submitted the consolidated cases for decision. Hence, this Decision. The Assigned Errors The CIR raises the following error by the Court's First Division: WHETHER THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO REFUND IN THE REDUCED AMOUNT OF P727_332.597.00 REPRESENTING ALLEGED ERRONEOUSLY PAID EXCISE TAXES FOR ITS LOCALLY-PRODUCED UNLEADED GASOLINE FUEL AND DIESEL FUEL OIL SOLD TO MICRO DRAGON PETROLEUM. INC.. A TAX- EXEMPT ENTITY. FOR THE I sJ TO 3RD QUARTERS OF TY 2018. On the other hand, Petron raises the following error: The Honorable Court in Division erred in ruling that Petitioner is not entitled to the refund or credit of the excise taxes in the amount of Forty- Six Million Five Hundred Sixty-Seven Thousand Six Hundred Twenty-Five Pesos (f'46.567.625.00). representing excise taxes paid during the period January 1. 20I 8 to September 30. 2018. on locally-produced unleaded gasoline fuel and diesel fuel oil which were subsequently sold and delivered to Micro Dragon Petroleum. Inc .. a tax-exempt entity. Arguments of the Parties CIR 's arguments: The CIR reiterates his arguments that Petron is liable to pay excise tax on locally-produced unleaded gasoline fuel and diesel fuel oil subsequently sold and delivered to MDPI. This liability arises because MDPI failed to meet the conditions prescribed in its SBMA-issued Certificate of Registration and Tax Exemption, particularly that MDPI's sales within the customs territory exceeded the 30% threshold. Therefore, the excise taxes paid were not erroneously or illegally paid. Also, he asserts that claims for refund of excise taxes paid are authorized only by Section 130(d} of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, ("Tax Code") and not by Section 135(c) of the same~

DECISIO~ CTA LJJ:.Jos. 311-t & 3115 (CTA Cas~..: \lo~. 10232. 10266& 10267) Petron 's arguments: Petitioner assails the Court's disallowance amounting to P46,567,625.00 (out of the total excise tax payments ofl'773,902,402.00) and avers that the amounts disallowed arose from fuel removals which can be traced from the Withdrawal Certificate ("WC"), Cargo Outtum Certificates ("COC"), and daily SAP-Generated Official Registry Book ("ORB"). Further, the Independent Certified Public Accountant ("ICPA") ascertained that Petron paid the corresponding excise taxes due on unleaded gasoline fuel and diesel fuel oil removals from the PBR for the period covered. These removals are reported and paid in the ETRs which corresponds to the product removals per COCs, and daily SAP-Generated ORB. These examined WC were duly signed and attested by the Internal Revenue Officer in the premises of the PBR. Our Ruling Both Petitions for Review must be denied. The parties' arguments in their respective Petitions were already raised before the Court in Division and were accordingly addressed and resolved in the Assailed Resolution. Nevertheless, to finally put these matters to rest, the Court En Bane shall discuss these on their merits. However, prior thereto, We shall first resolve whether this Court has acquired jurisdiction over the parties' respective Petitions. The Court En Bane has jurisdiction over both Petitions. Section 2(a}(l), Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals 12 ("RRCTA") provides that the Court En Bane shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the Decisions or resolutions on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Divisions in the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases arising from administrative agencies (i.e. the Bureau of Internal Revenue), thus: SECTION 2. Cases Within the Jurisdiction o(lhe Court En Bane. - The Court en bane shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following;..o-- '' A.M. No. 05-1\-07-CTA. November22. 2005.

DECISIO' CTA�Bi\os.3!!-t&311:'{CL\Cas.:Nos_ 10232. !0266& !0267) Page 7 of !3 (a) Decisions or resolutions on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Divisions in the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over: (I) Cases arising from administrative agencies- Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Customs. Depm1ment of Finance, Department of Trade and Industry, Depm1ment of Agriculture; In relation thereto, Section I. Rule 8 of RRCTA provides that in cases falling under the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court en bane, the petition for review of a decision or resolution of the Court in Division must be preceded by the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial with the Division. On the other hand, Section 3(b) of the same provides that a party adversely affected by a decision or resolution of a Division of the Court on a motion for reconsideration or new trial may appeal to the Court by filing before it a petition for review within fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the questioned decision or resolution. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period herein fixed, the Court may grant an additional period not exceeding fifteen days from the expiration ofthe original period within which to file the petition for review. Put simply, in order for this Court to acquire jurisdiction over a case, the petition for review by the aggrieved party must be filed before the Court En Bane within 15 days from the date of receipt of the Court in Division's resolution on the party's timely motion for reconsideration or new trial on the decision of said Court acting in division. However, said 15-day period to file petition for review before the Court En Bane may be extended by a period not exceeding 15 days from the expiration of the original period within which to file the petition for review. In this case, the CIR received the Assailed Resolution on his timely filed Motion for Reconsideration on the Assailed Decision on March 20,2025, giving him until April 4, 2025 to file a petition for review before this Court. The instant Petition for Review, docketed as CTA EB No. 3114, was filed on March 28, 2025. It was thus timely made, and this Court acquired jurisdiction over the same. On the other hand, Petron received the Assailed Resolution on its likewise timely filed Motion for Partial Reconsideration on the Assailed Decision on March 18, 2025, giving it until April 2, 2025 to file a petition for review before this Court. However, Petron instead filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on March 31, 2025, docketed as CTA EB No. 3115. This was granted by this Court on April 2, 2025, giving Petron until April I7, 2025 to file its petitiorv---

DECISIO:\ CTA�B:.Jos.311-J.&3ll:'i(CT/\Casel\os.I0~3~.10~66& 10267) Petron filed its Petition for Review on April 21, 2025. Considering that the expiration date to file the petition on April I 7, 2025 fell on a regular holiday (Maundy Thursday), while the following business day on April 18, 2025 was also declared as a regular holiday (Good Friday), Petron likewise filed its petition within the extended period granted by the Court on the immediately following business day on April 21, 2025. Thus, this Court likewise acquired jurisdiction over the same. Petron 's sale offiiel to MDPI is exempt from excise taxes. The CIR insists that Section 135 of the Tax Code does not grant exemption to sellers; rather, it provides for an enumeration wherein petroleum products when sold to international carriers and entities enumerated therein are exempt from excise tax. Accordingly, Section 135 cannot be invoked by the sellers, like Petron, as a ground to claim for refund of the excise tax paid, but only by the buyers who are exempt entities. Further, the CIR asserts that MDPI is not a tax-exempt entity as it failed to meet the conditions prescribed in its SBMA-issued Certificate of Registration and Tax Exemption, particularly that MDPI's sales within the customs territory exceeded the 30% threshold. The CIR's arguments lack merit. First, the CIR misunderstands Section 135 ofthe Tax Code. This matter was already settled in Pilipinas Shell Petroleum v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, 13 where it was held that the tax exemption under Section 135 ofthe Tax Code must con�espondingly benefit the one who actually bears the liability to pay the same (i.e., the importers/manufacturers of petroleum products sold to international can-iers, among others), and not the one who simply bears the economic burden thereof (i.e., the purchasers of the products, such as international carriers). Considering that the status of the petroleum products as tax-exempt solidifies upon the sale to any ofthe entities enumerated under Section 135 ofthe Tax Code, any excise taxes which were previously paid thereon would then be considered as "en�oneously or illegally collected," and therefore, subject to refund. This was, in fact, already explained by the Court's First Division in the Assailed Decision and We hereby affir~ 1' G.R. No.211303.June 15.2021.

IJECISIO~ CTA EH l\'os. 311-1- & 3115 (CTA Case "\.Jos. 10232. 10266 & I 0267) Pagt! 9 of 13 Without new and substantial arguments to buttress his claim, this Court cannot be easily persuaded by the mere word-for-word reiteration of arguments from the CIR's Answer, Memorandum, and Motion for Reconsideration on the Assailed Decision before the Comi in Division to his Petition before this Court. The Court's decision on the matter cannot be simply overturned by a stubborn repetition of a particular set of arguments, especially considering that the prevailing jurisprudence settling the same issue upon which the CIR's arguments rest was left unaddressed. Second, MDPI is entitled to exemption from excise taxes regardless of its compliance with the 30% income threshold. As already explained in the Assailed Decision: In this case. [Petron] presented the SBMA-issued Certificates of Registration and Tax Exemption to prove thct its customer. MDPI. is registered with the SBMA as a Freepm1 Enterprise. The registration is valid �rom 27 October 2016 to 26 October 202 L ... Under Article III(c). which is a common provrs10n in the aforementioned SBMA-issued Certificates of Registration and Tax Exemption. MDPI is exempt ��trom all local and national taxes. including but not limited to ... internal revenue taxes. such as VAT. ad valorem and excise taxes.�� In lieu of these taxes. MDPI shall pay a tina! tax of5% of its gross income earned. Regarding [CIR"sJ allegation that MDPI failed to meet the condition also mentioned under Article Ill( c) of the SBMA-issued Certificates of Registration and Tax Exemption. i.e.. ��that should [MDPI's] income �rom source within the Customs Territory exceed [30%] of its total income from all sources. then [MDPI] shall be subject to the income tax laws of the Customs Territory"'. this does not strip MDPI of its exemption from excise tax. The proviso explicitly subjects [MDPI] to the income tax laws of the customs territory if its income from sources within the customs territory exceeds 30% of its total income. As it is worded. the said proviso does not extend to other types of taxes. such as excise tax. which are distinct ti�om income tax. Excise tax is typically imposed on specific goods. such as petroleum products. and is related to the production. sale. or consumption of these goods rather than the taxpayer's income. The condition as stated in the SBMA-issued Certificates of Registration and Tax Exemption ("CRTE") ofMDPI "that should [MDPI's] income from source within the Customs Territory exceed [30%] of its total income from all sources, then [MDPI] shall be subject to the income tax laws of the Customs Territory" finds source from Chapter V, Section 44 of the Rules and Regulations to Implement RA No. 7227, which provides thav-----

O[CISIO:\ CTAT:Ri\os.311-t&311:'i{CTACas~Nos. 10232_ 10266&: 10267) Sec. 44. Percentage o(lncome Allmmblefi�om Sources Within the Customs Territory. SBF Enterprises may generate income from sources within the Customs Territory of up to Thirty Percent (30%) o( its total income from all sources; provided. that should an SBF Enterprise's income tium sources within the Custom Territory exceed Thirty Percent !30%) o( its total income from all sources. then it shall be subject to the income tax /mrs ofthe Customs Territory; provided, further. that in any case. customs duties and taxes must be paid with the respect to income from sales of m1icles to the Customs Territory. (Italics supplied.) The foregoing provision contemplates only SBF Enterprise's income in setting the 30% threshold, and only said income shall be affected by the consequence of violation of such threshold. Nothing therein or in MDPI's SBMA-issued CRTEs speaks that such condition and consequence of its violation extend to MDPI's exemption from excise taxes. Thus, as correctly held by the Court in Division, petroleum products sold by Petron to MDPI, a tax-exempt entity, are exempt from excise taxes pursuant to Section 135(c) ofthe Tax Code. The fitel removals with corresponding excise taxes amounting to ?46,567,625.00 cannot be completely traced to the supporting documents. Petron insists that the following fuel removals with corresponding excise taxes amounting to P46,567,625.00 can be traced to its supporting documents, as verified by the ICPA. This Court is not persuaded. First, Petron cannot insist that the Court simply rely on the ICPA's findings on its claim for refund since the latter's findings are not conclusive to this Court and is still subject to Our verification. 1 ~ Second, the !CPA's findings were indeed verified by the Court's First Division, and its own findings were already explained in the Assailed Decision/ " SEC. 3. Findings of independenl CPA.- The submission by the independent CPA of pre-marked documentary exhibits shall be subject to verification and comparison with the original documents, the availability of \Vhich shall be the primary responsibility of the party possessing such documents and, secondarily. by the independent CPA. The fine/inKs and conclusions o( the independent C?..-1. may be challenged by the parties and shall not be cmu.:/11sh�e upon the Court, lrhich may. in ll'hole or in part. adopt such .findings and conclusions subject to rerification. (Rule 13 of the Rerised Rules of the CT4) (Italics. Ours.)

DECISIO'\ CTA EB Nos. 311-t & 3 I 15 (CTi\ Case ~m. I0232. 10266 & 10267) Page II ofl3 The said removals of 18,627,050 L @ air from the PBR that were subsequently sold to MDPI cannot be verified by reconciling [Petron's] ETRs with its SAP-generated ORBs. Specifically, the afbrementioned removals o(locally-produced diesel(itel oil cannot be found in or traced within the detailed transaction listings in the corresponding SAP-generated ORBs. which reflect the breakdown of the amoums paid per ETR. This observation, coupled with the fact that the amounts paid per the corresponding ETRs tied up with the SAP-generated ORBs. suggests that these removals fall outside the scope of the subject refund claims. As a result. the Court cannot ascertain whether these removals were indeed part of the excise tax payments totaling !'773.902.402.00 (with an adjusted amount of !'773.900.222.00). which are the subject of the present refund claims. (Italics and boldfacing supplied.) The Assailed Decision sufficiently explained its findings, and yet Petron, in its Motion for Partial Reconsideration thereon and until its Petition herein, has merely reiterated a side-by-side comparison of the figures of fuel removals (in volume) shown in the supporting documents, without providing a breakdown of the SAP-generated ORBs, which should have supposedly already addressed the Court in Division's findings in disallowing the corresponding excise taxes claimed for refund. It is true that the figures offuel removals (in volume @ liters) stated in the SAP-generated ORBs are higher than the figures of fuel removals (in volume @ liters) stated in the corresponding COC and WC. However, the Court cannot just assume that the fuel removals per COC and WC are already included in the fuel removals per SAP-generated ORBs. Considering that the discrepancies noted are too significant to escape the Court in Division's perusal, Petron should have accounted for or reconciled all of these discrepancies in order to shed light on the matter and eliminate any doubt that the amount claimed for refund are indeed traceable to alleged fuel removals delivered to MDPI. The Court must consistently apply strictness in tracing the figures of fuel removals (in volume @ liters) in the supporting documents with specificity, considering that majority of the fuel removals (in volume@ liters) were properly traced one-to-one with all of its supporting documents. We thus find no reason to relax this strict one-to-one tracing on the amounts disallowed by the mere reason that the figures in one document are higher than the rest of the corroborating documents. The Court reiterates the time-honored principle that tax refunds are construed strictly against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the State. Hence, the law upon which the claim of refund is made, and the documenty-

DECISIO'\ CTA EB Nl)S_ 311-1. & 3115 (CTA Case Nos. I0232. 10266 & 10267) presented to prove such entitlement to the refund are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and are strictissimi scrutinized. 15 ACCORDINGLY, the Petitions for Review respectively filed by the parties are hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated August 15, 2024 and Resolution dated March 11, 2025 in CTA Case Nos. 10232, 10266 & 10267 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. 1 MARIA ROW;ENA I Ass stice WE CONCUR: ~.~J- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice ~ ~ f ~/ilk . ~'rv..k MARIAN IVY&. REYESkAJARDO Associate Justice Afurran� LANEE S. CUI-IJAVID Associate Justice 15 Tanduay Distillers. Inc. v. Commissioner qf Internal Revenue. G.R. No. 256740 (Notice). February 13. 2023.

CTA EB :'\Jo"- 311-1. & 3115 (CTA Case Nos. 10232. 10266 & 10267) Page 13of\3 HENRJl~NGELES Associate Justice 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. ~-~ , _____ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice