BARRIO FIESTA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City S...vecial Third Division BARRIO FIESTA MANUFACTURING CTA CASE NO. 10483 CORPORATION, Members: Petitioner, RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, and -versus- MODESTO-SAN PEDRO,JJ. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Promulgated: 202J x-- ------ - -----------------------R-e--s-p-o-n-d--e-n-t.----------~-----S--~E-P---0- -4~t-,r.?~- ~ ~-------x ---~�- DECISION RINGPIS-LIBAN, J. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Petition for Review filed on March 10, 2021 prays for the refund in the amount of P5,454,368.17, allegedly representing petitioner's payment on March 12, 2019, for compromise settlement pursuant to the Offer of Compromise, which was not acted on by the respondent and still retained by the Bureau o f Internal Revenue (BIR).1 THE PARTIES Petitioner Barrio Fiesta Manufacturing, Inc. is a corporation duly registered under the law of the Philippines, with address at 17 F. Lazaro St. , West Canumay, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila.2 It is duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with Company Registration No. CS146893.3 I t is also duly registered with the BIR as shown in its BIR 1'1/' 1 Summary of the Case, Pre-Trial O rde r dated ~-[arch 2, 2022, D ocket, p. 280. 2 Par. 1, Admitted Facts, j oin! Stipulation ofFacts and Issues QSFI), Docket, p. 241. 3 Par. 4, Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket, p. 242.

CTA Case Nos. 10483 Bam�o Fiesta Manufacturing Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Certificate of Registration No. OCN 4RC0001389141, and was assigned with Taxpayer's Identification Number 000-286-365-0004 Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is sued in his official capacity, having been duly appointed and empowered to perform the duties of his office. He may be served with summons, notices and other court processes at his office at the BIR National Office Building, Diliman, Quezon City.5 ANTECEDENTS (ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL) Petitioner is the litigant in the following cases before this Court: (a) CTA Case No. 9850; (b) CTA Case No. 9871; and (c) CTA Case No. 9880, all entitled "Barno Fiesta Mantifacturing Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue". 6 Petitioner received a Resolution from this Court promulgated on November 26, 2018 for CTA Case No. 9850, referring the case to mediation at the Philippine Mediation Center - Court of Tax Appeals, pursuant to the Interim Guidelines for Implementing Mediation in the CTA as approved by the Supreme Court on January 18, 2011.7 With the assistance of the assigned mediator, both petitioner and BIR agreed to enter / explore the possibility of entering into a Compromise Agreement, subject to the approval of the National Evaluation Board (NEB), pursuant to Section 204(A) of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended.8 In order to increase the likelihood of approval by the NEB, during mediation, petitioner and the BIR agreed to include in the Compromise Agreement, the pending cases involving collection notices, and the assessments upon which they are allegedly based for other taxable years.9 As such, CTA Case No. 9871 (involving assessment for deficiency taxes for taxable year 2015), and CTA Case No. 9880 (involving assessment for deficiency taxes for taxable year 2014), were included in the Compromise Agreement. Both petitioner and the BIR agreed that all three (3) cases be the subject of the Offer of Compromise.10 As agreed upon by both parties in the mediation proceedings, the Compromise Agreement contained the following terms and conditions, among others:;�" 4 Par. 5, Admitted Facts,JSFI, Docket, p. 242. 5 Par. 3, Admitted Facts,JSFI, Docket, p. 241. 6 Par. 7, Admitted Facts. JSFI, Docket, p. 242. 7 Par. 8, Admitted Facts,JSFI, Docket, p. 242. 8 Par. 9, Admitted Facts,JSFI, Docket, p. 243. 'Par. 10, Admitted Facts,JSFI, Docket, p. 243. 10 Par. II, Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket, p. 243.

CTA Case Nos. 10483 Bam'o Fiesta Manufacturing Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 3 of11 a) That petltloner agrees to setde the alleged deficiency tax liability being disputed in CTA Case No. 9850 by offering a comprormse setdement at the rate of 10% of the basic tax assessed; b) That both parties have explored in good faith the possibility of ending the dispute for the other cases currendy pending with the CTA, specifically CTA Case No. 9871 and CTA Case No. 9880; and c) That petitioner agrees to pay a compromise setdement at the rate of 10% of the assessed basic tax for all3 cases (CTA Case Nos. 9850, 9871 and 9880), amounting to the total amount of P5,454,368.17Y Petitioner then made the following payments to the BIR on March 12, 2019, relative to the Offer of Compromise, to wit: Tax Type Taxable year Amount Value-added tax (VAT) 2014 p 303,918.1512 Income tax 2014 Expanded withholding tax 2014 2,889,043.6413 VAT 2015 247,803.71 14 VAT 2016 TOTAL 1,396,995.1515 616,607.5216 p 5,454,368.17 On July 2, 2019, petitioner, through its counsel, received the Maniftstation dated June 28, 2019, flied by the BIR in CTA Case No. 9850. As part of the said Maniftstation, the Memorandum dated March 28, 2019 was attached, wherein the Offer of Compromise by petitioner was remanded to the Legal Division of Revenue Region No. 5, for it to undergo further study.17 Through the Resolution dated July 29, 2019 promulgated by the First Division of this Court, the mediation was held unsuccessful.18 On March 9, 2021, petitioner flied an administrative claim for refund of the amount paid for the compromise setdement before the BIR Revenue Region No. 5, pursuant to Section 204(C) in relation to Section 229 of the NIRC, as amended. 1~ 11 Par. 12, Admitted Facts,JSFI, Docket, p. 243. 12 Exhibits "P-8", "P-8-1", "P-8-2", Docket, pp. 378 to 379. 13 Exhibits "P-9", "P-9-1", "P-9-2", Docket, pp. 380 to 381. 14 Exhibits "P-10", "P-10-1", "P-10-2", Docket, pp. 382 to 383. 15 Exhibits "P-11", "P-11-1", "P-11-2", Docket, pp. 384 to 385. 16 Exhibits "P-12", "P-12-1", "P-12-2", Docket, pp. 386 to 387. 17 Par. 13, Admitted Facts,JSFI, Docket, p. 244. 18 Par. 14, Admitted Facts,JSFI, Docket, p. 244. 19 Par. 15, Admitted Facts,JSFI, Docket, p. 244.

CTA Case Nos. 10483 Barrio Fiesta Manujactun"ng Corporation vs. Commissionerq/Internal Revenue Page 4 ofll PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT The present Petition.for Review was filed on March 10, 2021.20 On May 20, 2021, respondent filed a Motion .for Extension of Time to Fife Answer,21 which was granted by the Court in the Order dated May 24, 2021.22 Thereafter, he flled a Second Motion.for Extension ofTime to Fife Answer on June 23, 2021,23 and then flled his Answer (with Motion to Admit) on June 25,2021.24 In the Resolution dated July 27, 2021,25 the Court granted respondent's Second Motion .for Extension of Time to Fife Answer and Motion to Admit, and admitted respondent's Answer. The Pre-Trial Conference was initially set on September 20, 2021,26 but was subsequently rescheduled and held on December 13,2021.27 Prior thereto, petitioner's Pre-Tria/ Briifwas posted on September 15, 2021,28 while the Pre- Tria/ Briif.for Respondent was submitted on October 27, 2021.29 Respondent flled a Manifestation on December 3, 2021,30 stating that the BIR Records involved in this case is already with the Judicial Records Division of this Court as of August 9, 2018, as it is also the subject of CTA Case No. 9850, to which the Compromise Settlement was submitted and the payment made therein is the one being refunded in this case. On February 2, 2022, the parties submitted their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues,31 which was approved and adopted by the Court in the Pre-Trial Order dated March 2, 2022,32 thereby deeming the termination of the pre-trial. Trial ensued. During trial, the parties presented their respective documentary and testimonial evidence./ 2o Docket, pp. 7 to 26. 21 Docket, pp. 147 to 149. 22 Docket, p. 152. 21 Docket, pp. 150 to 151. 24 Docket, pp. 153 to 163. 25 Docket, pp. 168 to 171. 26 Resolution dated July 24, 2021, Docket, pp. 168 to 171. 27 Notice '!(Resetting dated October 11,2021, Docket, p. 190; Order dated December 13, 2021, Docket, p. 236. 28 Docket, pp. 172 to 187. ~2 Docket, pp. 228 to 231. '" Docket, pp. 232 to 234. 11 Docket, pp. 241 to 251. 32 Docket, pp. 280 to 286.

CTA Case Nos. 10483 Barrio Fiesta Mamifacturing Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal &venue Page 5 of!! Petitioner offered the testimony of Ms. Liezel V. Bilazon, petitioner's Accounting Supervisor.33 On March 18, 2022, pet1t1oner filed its Formal Offir of Evidence. 34 Respondent failed to file his comment thereon.35 In the Resolution dated May 2, 2022/6 the Court admitted all of petitioner's offered exhibits. For his part, respondent offered the testimony of Revenue Officer Honeylette Claire P. Bobadilla.37 On May 11, 2022, respondent filed his Formal Offir of Evidence.38 Petitioner failed to file its comment thereon. 39 In the Resolution dated August 1, 2022,40 the Court admitted all of respondent's offered evidence. Respondent's Memorandum41 and petitioner's Memorandum"2 were separately filed on August 31, 2022. This case was deemed submitted for decision on September 13, 2022_43 THE ISSUE STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES As stipulated by the parties, the issues for the Court's resolution are as follows: "A. Whether Petitioner is entided to the refund in the amount of Five Million Four Hundred Fifty-Four Thousand Three Hundred Sixty-Eight and 17/100 Pesos (P5,454,368.17), pursuant to [Sections] 204(A), 204(C) and 229 of the Tax Code, as amended, representing the compromise setdement paid pursuant to the Offer of Compromise for the speedy disposition of CTA Case Nos. 9850,9871, and 9880. B. Whether Petitioner made a timely claim for refund and complied with the requirement for the filing of Refund."/' 33 Exhibits "P-20" and "P-22", Docket, pp. 131 to 144, and pp. 264 to 269, respectively; Order dated February 16, 2022, Docket, p. 274. J-1 Docket, pp. 296 to 304. 3S Records Venfication dated April 21, 2022 issued by this Court's Judicial Records Division, Docket, p. 432. 36 Docket, p. 434 to 435. 37 Exhibit "R-16", Docket, pp. 195 to 204; 1\!inutes of the heating held on, and Order dated 1\!ay 2, 2022, Docket, pp. 436 to 437. 38 Docket, pp. 438 to 447. 39 &cordJ Verification dated June 14, 2022 issued by the Judicial Records Division of this Court, Docket, p. 458. '0 Docket, pp. 462 to 465. 41 Docket, pp. 469 to 482. 42 Docket, pp. 488 to 516. 43 Resolution dated September 13,2022, Docket, p. 518.

CTA Case Nos. 10483 Bam'o Fiesta Manlffacturing Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 6 ofll Petitioner's arguments: iOtPnhedfatefittbeioitrthnioePawfperepteCirltteioeieomnstnitmpiteoorrenoleymarbrrfiygotslun.eteehedsioesbuBtyeshlrIapyrRotepntoaiaetifiodowtuhnosreeritraitalnewlmendigotahiaulllldnteyhmgtceapiolnB;aliilsaIedtRncrbdateatyidntvhpdetaeattxthciettilsihsao.ieCmnedoroufcorottrn,rirntreheesefpuoeuncfndtsiavocleautlnetyiddo; Respondent's counter-arguments: aouoswraaneilupnfn}rqdtjyoicdusutneettaioineasrrduanfenetoRhpnmdtccehpdietolenerhaesnnofgiparimistvltonsRtitanarsntlfeuuxtghdoaveoneernledodifncnarcfeteetsbulhrtasficterluiehiSoimwcnteRneiatdehlcetpyafs;eetgpo;finntuaoolrhadiglrncnaaaresaatedtsi2icttnfaoti2hluthoisan9hadtnenistamtdfchtap(foRopoeeirfrsmeproRtpiflrrtv)cpeiueicaoorrrnfNalesoumnditofdomniesupo,n.drnirn'apss9codroee-lemsra2tfmehaii0iitmqacmns1aillueoylai3otenni,hsumbsbgeeewtneersttfthth,ndoldapieaepivcreadtmahadsuirriadeeurltnpmeeifncoccrudtteouoat,en.vlondfdtacifhnrdot;dalefoemyrxtotsohaeptbmemahtslexhtyeonearatuwmtoehfsinfstieilpnuutitfnhtnmatipcgolodlaatitnehnsoiaiddseneglf THE COURT'S RULING The present Petition for Review is denied. Governing provisions for refund claims. Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997 read: "SEC. 204. Authoriry of the Commissioner to Compromise/Abate and Refund or Credit Taxes. -The Commissioner may - XXX XXX XXX (C) Credit or refund taxes erroneously or illegally received or penalties imposed without authority, refund the value of internal revenue stamps when they are returned in good condition by the purchaser, and, in his discretion, redeem or change unused stamps that have been rendered unfit for use and refund their value upon proof of destruction. No credit or refund of taxes or penalties shall be allowed unless the taxpayer files m ~ 44 Summary of Issues to be Resolved, JSFI, Docket, p. 246.

CTA Case Nos. 10483 Barrio Fiesta Manufacturing Corporation vs. Commissioner tif Internal Revenue Page 7oft! writing with the Commissioner a claim for credit or refund within two (2) years after the payment of the tax or penalty: Provided, however, that a return filed showing an overpayment shall be considered as a written claim for credit or refund." (Emphasis added) "SEC. 229. Recovery of Tax Erroneously or Illegally Collected. - No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly ftled with the Commissioner; but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress. In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the expiration of two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment: Provided, however, That the Commissioner may, even without a written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax, where on the face of the return upon which payment was made, such payment appears clearly to have been erroneously paid." (Emphases added) of The aforequoted provisions are clear: within two (2) years from the date payment of tax, the claimant must ftrst flie an administrative claim with respondent before flling its judicial claim with the courts of law. Both claims must be flied within a two (2)-year reglementary periodY From the language of the law, it does not matter how far apart the administrative claims were ftled, or whether respondent was actually able to and judicial rule on the administrative claim, so long as both claims were ftled within the two-year prescriptive period.46 Timeliness of the filing of the claim is mandatory and jurisdictional, and thus the Court cannot take cognizance of a judicial claim for refund flied either prematurely or out of time. It is worthy to stress that as tax law even explicitly provides that it be ftled within for the judicial claim, two (2) years from payment of the tax "regardless ofany supervening cause that mC!J arise afterpC!Jment. "P ~ 45 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San l\:figuel Corporation, etseq., G.R. Nos. 180740 and 180910, November 11,2019. 46 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Carrier Air Conditioning Philippines, 2021. Inc., G.R. No. 226592, July 27, -17 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San 1-Tiguel Corporation, etseq., supra.

CTA Case Nos. 10483 BarnO Fiesta Mamifacturing Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 8 of11 sbleeirymvroisielnodaemrowMaeusiosotphlrfeyefociouoctvteirsersirtlih,llaleaetgvugtaihtalnolel.gyr4y8ncfaoooulrltaeehugcotothreiiodnty.rgi,tyopArtronouvpl1"eoeSvrnylroopnnthesroeoupstaaeloxlrort,ywiof/nregootahtn/esetauwxbr"jheeciiccsothvdteioesrfyitsnaoxemodafteiaosontat,ohxnoeeesrr Thus, for the present claim for refund to prosper, petitioner must not only establish that it has timely flied its refund claim, it must likewise prove that the subject taxes paid are "erroneous or if/ega/". Petitioner timely filed its administrative andjudicial claims. In this case, it is shown that petltloner paid the amount totaling baatCPondo5odmt,m4hfii5tlnphef4eires,lo3litmtrj6wsua8idtisi.ati1vehcd7.eiim4an9lcittnlcohaCileisaomtitrtumhwantfeoitofvi-orneyBrgerIaeraRferfnrufdpounormndejndsuctdfhflrMiiiiicelspeidaatddirlvcoabehctneelpa,fiMeo1mpr2reiaes,otridctt2fh.hio0oisr1n99e,Crre2ofrh0uuea2nrlda1tdt.oiuvbnneCetfilMoeltaroaMrerlycair,hrtescsph1pe0Oot1,inf2t2ifd,o0ee2n2rn0e1t2r,,o5'15s10f Correspondingly, petitioner timely flied its administrative and judicial claims for refund. However, petitioner failed to prove that there was an erroneous or illegal tax which was collected by the govemment. caewoBocvbrItliolReldiendgecgranuetltcePcyipedoeeohnitvntteiahteltixbdsoaoeytnsstroar,eieextrmtrseuecipessrlp.taonhrineemiPidsnntese,egttinntidawtthtneiianohaddtgnnetendtththroheytapheetptoethrrsscuieeiionnmtscmwdrpieutpaplhclselryoeaonvtjmoruoeeiftsrittrsyashiieoicganleoushestftiderpoettrebdoqionryeurvddmoiieeertnb.eenmiesntiobatdtuynhpisdcealatyiiaptds,tprepeteswahpeiethoddhinyBcadohtIrerRwerwfaihhulanleansecnsgdeanttlhhooolyeetff To bolster its position, petitioner emphasizes that respondent's assessments against petitioner which are the subject of the Offer of !~-""' 48 EtChxoemhdimbeiifstsisinO"intPieo-rn8o"pf Itronotve"riPdn-ae1ld2Ri-ne2v"eB,nLuDeAovCcs.kKeP'tSt,lippLipAn.aWs37SD8heItloCl TP3e8It7Oro.NleuAmRCYo,rpFoirfatthioEn,dGiti.oRn. , No. 188497, April 25, 2012, citing 49 p. 486. 50 Par. 15, Admitted Facts,JSFI, Docket, p. 244. 51 Docket, pp. 7 to 15.

CTA Case Nos. 10483 Barrio Fiesta Manujadunizg Cotporation vs. Commissioner f!! Internal Revenue rcsaCeuosotsbmeemmnsptpsiritmroosomn,emntoihitsssfeeetrheawsegfeoeastrridaneeie,sdmdt taihespmnapettuotituitectindoathnniaaesnsrbedernaraoroeranepteanspoxtoliuiltelslidapya,beneintdlaidntifyildinlnegtagoclawol.wanitnchhdliuctdhheeixsstehCceutohtuoaarrmtyt,.oraeunsndpPtoetpnthiadtaiietdonntthae'sesr cpavconeooymtlmiutppniwortlaioanOarymenirnlcyi,eserbeterhenofteitononeergoroetatufhdhpuseeplillrnryyotrhoevao.aqawrnulTadiowhrr,eeufrmorstthe,nheserganpeftEtoussivpnltlaodyoilsneufdncaaoetttinlrhoaleetevnqcseutuBrceisbordomem,atmrhipadtaesnrtnoodttmfhthfatwioehstareetsp,htBahemIwyeRpmahas.dieyucenbmhtmvewonitshltasueswinotanmtasarxaoinlpdyfoaettyhbieineynr We agree with respondent. swdphirisaotalhvlpoibpduereStosdevcteathtdhlieuoaocnt fftuen6tldohl eforsaofeapmtpptRplleiRltcihmcaeateNitntoioootnt.naolf3offoo0rur-t2thcsc0eoto0ammn2op,dp5fri2frnoeogmarmestidaissxaeemal,ismeaetbnhotiddeulieentamditem,se,bonayatunsndsRfthoRalptllhoalaiwNdtbsoe:ui.npp9oroc-n2acs0efe1sils3ineo,5gdf3 "SEC. 6. APPROVAL OF OFFER OF COMPROMISE. Except for offers of compromise where the approval is delegated to the REB pursuant to the succeeding paragraph, all compromise setdements within the jurisdiction of the National Office (NO) shall be approved by a majority of all the members of the NEB composed of the Commissioner and the four (4) Deputy Commissioners. All decisions of the NEB, granting the request of the taxpayer or favorable to the concurrence of the Commissioner. taxpayer, shall have the XXX XXX XXX The compromise offer shall be paid by the taxpayer upon filing of the application for compromise settlement. No application for compromise settlement without the full settlement of the offered shall be processed amount. In case of disapproval of the application for compromise settlement, the amount paid upon filing of the aforesaid shall be deducted from the total outstanding tax application liabilities." (Emphasis addedy 52 SRRUeegvBueJlnEautCieoTCn:soNd eoso.Rf6e1-v92e90n70u0eo naRnCedgo7um-l2ap0tri0oo1nm.sisIemSpelettmleemnetinntgoSf eIcnttieornnsal7R(ce),ve2n0u4e(AT)axanLdia2b9il0itioesf the National Internal Superseding Revenue 53 SUBJECT: Amending Certain Provisions of Revenue Regulations No. 30-2002.

CTA Case Nos. 10483 Bam'o Fiesta Mam!facturing Corporation vs. CommiSsioner qf Internal Revenue Page10of11 idbneedfocuarcesteeBtsdhaesfweraodhpmeporelntihcetathhttieeootnafaolpfrooperulgitcocsaoitntamignopdnrrienoiggmsutiladsaxeitisolasinapeb,tptirlltoeihtmvieeeesda.n,mt mothuaenytabomefofpeurronectdespmsaeuidds,t be paid and that shall be maatathapmnaxepdyolsliuenieuaxndobbIettjintcelobipuctweaitttehoioastdirhsryfdhep,acsaupsaasussspruesbeytu,cajehealhtaescnsy.otttoAupoattercfbosetctaeioatctirnrhduoeddeernfirituneneeangrnrgpdlmtiyplttya,slaiinxetbcpeltaalfehditsaniiiensobbddsnieitliinoicsmtfatginsoeue,swrR.steyiRchteohettNhmtteaohopymi.rsbooh3eCmau0vd-noi2eestu0teroey0tre,2fsmte,attoianttnostldaeealdbmmm,eoeacieunyfonttasmdentwevaeydnei,l,nldfaitinnbhbnadeeegl mtthhheieelsdrtepatkeeherIxas,nitosattnCnshodewnmnophmorobiitsnistnrcihoedinrcpioeelnreuigvogoerfhedfInllsatitoebthlriueeontrianaopllbiaiRtnyeyedtmvewoebnereiuntesietona;vmpsat.phneSlediaoepnst(ah2Mwye)orihgtrechu,raeeweulshpC(e1aoo.)yrhppm.a,as5ey4nnmtthoeiesndStumuitsyapdmrteoeamdpteheayrCwo, ouahugnerhdnt Notably in this case, there is a binding relation between the payor, the petitioner that flied an application for compromise settlement in relation to deficiency tax assessments for three (3) taxable years, and the respondent, the taxing authority in this jurisdiction. Moreover, the payment was made, not through mistake, but in pursuit of an application for compromise settlement. Thus, this Court Hnds no erroneous or illegal taxes that are refundable favor of petitioner. in efocavofiilndepsdetrnrotucTooeeaf,ddxirisstetcsrsrhietcsaeftirunsgusnteiipdmtlstoiehjnmuisareritbesnhutearigdtntaoeainnxta.sphtaecythleaneriamettunortfieoteyrsotcarflebafliuitmasnhxidn.gb5e5yxtheesmPuespfatftimiitcoieione.nsn,etTr,haanunudsdn,ftocahroretemubnptuaoetrtedelebynne,t WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the present Petitionfor Review is DENIED for lack of merit/ 54 G.R. Nos. 180740 & 180910, November 11, 2019. 55 Philippine Geothermal, Inc. vs. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 154028,July 29, 2005.

CTA Case Nos. 10483 Bam�o Fiesta Manufacturing Corporation vs. Commissioner qf Internal Revenue Page II of II SO ORDERED. ~ -ll....t.. ~ -r <......._ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice I CONCUR: ATTESTATION I attest 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's Division. MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, is it 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