CTA Case No. 4898 (Decision)

REPUBLIC OF UtE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS UUEZON Cl fY BANK OF fHE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS as Trustee of the Eveready Battery Phil(pptnes, Inc., Ret b"ement Fund (RTF)~ Benguet Cm�~por~ation, RTF, IBM Philippines, [nc.~ RTF, Johnson & John'Son Phi ls. T Inc., RTF, Coca-Co I a Expor�t Corp. <FtJnd A>, RTF~ Filipinas Shell Petr�oleu~a Cot�p., RTF, INSCOS E111ployees' RTF, Cit ibank, N. A. 1 RTF, Procter & Gamble Philippines, Inc., RTF, Del Monte Phi 1 ippines, Inc., RTF, PAL Pilot RTF, Engineering EqtJiplftent, Inc., RlF, Eli-LiLLy P h i l s � ., Inc., RTF, Nestle Philippines, Inc., RTF, Ciba- Geigy Employees, RTF, Goodyear Philippines, Inc.,'RTF, Du-Font Far� East Phils., Inc., RTF, Si!Qe Dar�by Phi 1 ippines, Inc � ., RTF, A�1on Cosmetics, Inc., RTF~ Tapat Par�k Oeve lopment Cot�p., RTF, Bank of Amertca, RTF, American Microsystems, Inc., <RMI> RTF, International School RTF, Levi- Strauss Administration, RTF, Levi-Strauss E~ployees' RTF, Mobil Philippines, Inc., RTF, Bank of America NT & SA Employees� RTF, Philippine Remnants Co., Inc., RTF, FL- Rgency Force RTF, Coca-Cola Expor�t Col'��p. <Fund B), IHF, Canlubang Suga.t� Estate, RTF, Wellington lnvestment and Manufacturing Corp., RTF, Mead- Johnson <Phil.s.l, Inc., RTF, Dri~tol Laboratories, Phils., Inc., RTF, Napv.a. Institute of Techno lcgy, RTF~ P�H�e foods Corporation, RlF, United Labat�ator��tes, Inc., RTF, PLOT Beneficial rrust, R1F 1 Astra

-- DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 48'38, 4'300 TO 4'340 2- Phar~aceutical, Inc., RTF, Insular Life E~ployees' RTF, A~erican Wire & Cable l'h.llt i - Employer, RTF, Hawaiian Philippines Co., Inc., RTF, Pet it ionev�, COf'IIIISSIONER OF INTERNRL REVENUE~ C. ,T. A. CASE NOS. 48'38 Respondent. 4'300 TO 4'340 %& Pr�o1111.l l gated: OCT 11191!i X- - - - - - - DECISION Presented before Us �re forty-two (42) consolidated cases of petition fot" t�ev i ew, docketed as C.T.A. Case Nos. 48'38; and 4900 up to 4940, for the refund of the aggr�egate a~ount of P9,692,325.02 allegedly representing finaL taxes withheld intet�est govev�nment securities purchased by petitioner covering the per�iod Jan�Jar��y 1, 1991 up to Oece111bet' 31, 1'391. The facts are as follows: Petitioner is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, and is engaged, a111ong in tn.As:t functions and activities. It is the duly appointed trustee of the abovena111ed retire111ent funds (f.unds fot� bv�e�1 it y), set up in accordance with their respective Retire~ent Benefit Plan. As such, it holds, 1340

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4898, 4'300 TO 4940 -3 atanages, invests and r~einvests the assets of the funds in confol'~lllity with the tt~IJ.St agree�ent entered by each of them. The aforesaid Plan provides f o�~ �~et i rement, death, and disability benefits to its members and, in all these cases, except for one, infra, were approved and qualified income tax by respondent, after having established that they satisfied the requirements of a e ,~easonabl benefit plan as provided under Republic Act No. 4917, and as implemented by Revenue Regulations No. 1-EoB. 1991 until .-. Fot~ the pericid beginning January c., Decembe�~ 23, 1991, petitioner allegedly invested asset~ of the funds in sec1,.n~i t i e s , specifically treasury bills, that ea�~ned a total net income of P38, 7��9, 300. OG. ln all the transaction5.made by petitioner, the.Central Bank of the Philippines which is the entity that sold the securities allegedly withheld, prepaid and remitted to Revenue (Bl R> the amount of P9,Eo92,325.02 as final ta:xes on the Realizing the e:xempt status of the various funds, petit i one�- filed a written claim "'� f o r refund with the ~ 1341

- DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NIJ. 4898, 4'300 TO 4'340 -4 'l"espondent in a letter�, dated and asser�ted ther�ein that the income/yield derived fro~ the investment of the trust funds in govern~ent securities is tax-exempt under Republic Act No. 4'317. Considering, however, that the two-year prescriptive per� i od to commence a judicial s�.Ait or� pt�oceed i ng for~ refund prescribed under� Section 2.30 of th'!? Nat iona 1 Internal Revenue Code, Ta~ Code for short, is a.bout to expir�e, and that, the admin.istrative claims are still unacted upon by respondent, petitioner ~oved to toll the running of said period. Hence~ th1s app~al. ln all the cases at bar, petitioner restates in sr..tbstance its earlier allegations surrounding the refund made before the respondent. Respondent uniformly contends that while petitioner claims to b~ entitled to income tax exeMption on the earnings of the trust funds pursuant to R.A. No. 4917, "in relation to Section 56<b>. now Section 53(b)" of the Tax Code, it can no longer rely on the latter section to justify its claim foJ~ e><emption final imposed by Sections 21 (d) and 24<cc>, now SPction 21 (c) ( l > and 24 ( P) ( 1 ) of the samE' Code, on earnings on bank dPposits and/ ol~ deposit 1342

/ DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4898 1 4900 TO 4940 -5 - subs t i t�Jtes because Pr-esident ia 1 Decr�ee No. 1'359, which took eFFect on October 15, amended said Section 21 (d) and 24<cc�) oF the Tax Code by deleting the pr�ov i so gr�ant ing such tax exeMption. Respondent argues that petitioner� Fa-t led to establish that the tax s�Jb.ject of its claim for refund w~s erroneously or illegally collected. <Answer, CTR records) Recor�ds show that petitiorier formally offered in evidence for each of the consolidated cases the following documents �and testimonies, namely: Sched�Jle of Investments Secur� i. t i e s made by the petitione~ for the year 1991, prepared by fund, indicating, aMong other things, the face value and matur� i ty val�Je of the treasury bills purchased, the pr�epaid Final ta,<es, the Confirmation of Sale document number�s, and the l"efundable withholding 2) Confirmation. of Sale documents issued by the Department of the petitioner and allegedly sold in favor� of the TI"IJ.S t Oepar�tment, also of the petit ioner� indicating the date of sale, ser�ial face amo1..1.nt, yields, prepaid taKes and se 11 ing pr� ice of the treasury bills, 3) Certifications issued by the BIR confit"Ning the taK eKempt of the retirement plans subject of these cases under R.A. No. 1343

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4898, 4900 TO 4940 -6 4917 and pertinent BlR regulations, 4) Worksheets of the Bangko Sentral ng Pi.lipinas, formerly Central Bank of the Ph i 1 i p p i. n e s, showing entt�ies of purchased by peti.tioner in the year 1991, theit� iss�J.e and maturity dates and final taKes withheld and paid to responde~t's Bureau, 5> Official Certification from the Government Securities Department of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas showtng bills by petit ioner� in the year� 1991 and the a11ount of taKes withheld for such purchases, 6) the Antonia Palero, a senior clerk at the� Trust Department of who identified plans of the 5), 7) the testimony of Mr. Eugenio 8. Lotho, head of the Tt'"eastJ.l'"Y Oper�at ions Depar�t ment of petitioner� d�n� ing the pet�iod Januar�y 1993, who together with employees of the trust department caused the preparation of the schedules consisting of the various confirmation of sales without recourse issued by Treasury Departaent to the Trust Department of the petitioner CTSN, Hear�ing 1994, p. 6), and lastly, 8) the testimony of Mr�s. Joy Ca�J.bang, Chief of the Auction and Placement Division of the Government Secur� it ies of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, who

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4898, 4900 TO 4940 -7 identified the worksheets stated her�eo f. In he�~ co11ment, t~espondent pl~esented no objections to the ad�ission of petitioner's evidences, insofar as ,. their e~istence are concerned, but to'ok e~ception to the collective purpose for which they are being offer~d on the grounds that they failed to substantiate the fact of petitioner actually using the assets of the various trust funds involved herein in the purchase of ~overn�ent- sectn~i ties, and that the alleged final ta~es actually paid for and in behalf of said trust funds and not by their trustee Bank, petitioner herein in its own juridical capacity as a banking institution. The s~le issue to be resolved thus centers on whethet~ or not petitionet~, as trustee of the various t~et i re�ent f\.mds in these cases, is ent it 1 ed to a t~efund of the .ta~es withheld by the Central Bank of 'the Philippines on interest income earned from purchases of treasury bills in the year 1991. Firstly, we try to discuss the legal foundation of the cases at bar. A cursory look into our jurisprudence would readily tell us that the legal argu�ents advanced by respondent had long been thrown into tMe dustbin of history. A 134[)

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4898, 4900 TO 4940 -8 - gliMpse of the wisdom of the High Court in Co��issioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court oF Appeals~ GCL Retire�ent Plan <G. R. No. 95022, Mar~ch 2.3, 1992i 207 SCRA 487) would explain the infirmity of her position, herself being the petitioner in said case. We qt.Aote: "To begin with, it is significant to note that the GCL Plan was qualified as exe�pt fro� income tax by the ComMissioner of Internal Revenue in accordance with Rep. Act No. 4917 appr~oved on 17 Jt.Ane 1967. This law specifically provided: SECTION 1. Any p�~ovision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the retirement benefits received by officials and employees of private firms, whether individual or corporate, in accordance with a reasonable private benefit plan �aintained by the e�ployer shall be e~e�pt fro� all ta~es and shall no~ be liable to attachment, levy or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatsoever except to pay a debt of the official or eMployee concerned to the private benefit plan or that arising from liability imposed in a criminal action;" xxx (emphasis ours). In so far as employees' trusts are concerned, the foregoing provision should be taken in r�e lat ion to then Sect ion 56 (b) <now S3(b]) of the Tax Code, as a�ended by Rep. Act No. 1983, supra, which took effect on 22 June 1957. This provision specifically e~e�pted e~ployees' t r u s t s fro� inco�e ta~ and is J~epeat ed ht:n~e'-mdeJ~ f oJ~ e�phas is:: "Sec. 56. Imposition of Ta~. (a) Application of ta~. The ta~es i�posed by this Title upon individuals shall apply to the inco�e

DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO~ 4898, 4900 TO 4940 -9 of estates or of any kind of property held in trust. XXX XXX �(b) Exception. The tax imposed by this Title shall not apply to employee's trust which forms part of a pension, stock bonus or profit- sharing plan of an employer for the benefit of some or all of his employees nxx" The tan-e~emption privilege of employees' trusts, as distinguished from any other kind of pt~operty held in tt~ust, spt~ings ft~om the foregoing provision. lt is unambiguous. Manifest therefrom is that the tax law has singled out employees' trusts for tax PXPIIIpt ion. And rightly, so, by virtue' of the raison d'etre behind the creation of eMployees' trusts. EmployeE's' trusts or benefit plans normally providE' economic assistance to Pmployees upon the occ,wrence of certain contingencies, particularly, old age retirement, death, sickness, or disability. It provides security against certain hazards to which members bf the Plan may be enp~sPd. It is an indepPndent and additional source of prptection for thP working group. What is mot~e, i t is established fot~ theit~ benefit and for no other purpose. ThP tan advantage in Rep. Ret No. 1983, SPction 56(b>, was concPived ~n ordPr to encouragE' the formation and PstablishmPnt of such private Plans for thP benpfit of laborers and employees outside of the Social Security Ret. Enlightening is a portion of the e"'pl anat oJ~y note to H. B. No. 6503, now R. A. J 983, .~eadi ng: "Considering that under Section 17 of the Social Security Ret, all contributions collected and payments of sickness, unemployment retirement, disability and death benefits made 1~34 7 '

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4898, 4900 TO 4940 - 10 thereunder together with the inco�e of the pension trust are eHellpt fro� any ta~, assessment, fee, or charge, it is proposed that a si�ilar syste- providing for retire�ent, etc. benefits for employees outside the Social Security Act be e~e�pted fro� inco�e ta~es." <Congressional Record, House of Repres~ntatives, V.ol. IV, Pal'�t. 2, No. 57, p. 1859, May 3 1 1957; cited in Co1111issioner of Internal Revenue v. Visayan Electric Co., et al.�, G.R. No. L-22611, 27 May 19681 23 SCRA 715>; underscoring supp 1 i ed. lt is evident that taH-eHellption is likewise to be enjoyed by the income of the pension trust. Otherwise, taHation of those earnings would result in a dillinution of accu11ulated income and reduce whatever the tt~ust � beneficiat~ies wot..tld ,~eceive out of the trust fund. This would run afoul of the very intendment of the law. The deletion in Pres. Decree No. 1959 of the provisos regarding taH eHeaption and preferential taH rates under the old law, therefore, can not be dee11ed to eHtend to e11ployees' trusts. Said Decree, being a general law, can not repeal by implication a specific provision, Section 56(b) (now 53IbJ> in relation to Rep. Act No. 4917 granting eHemption from income taH to e11ployees' trusts. Rep. Act 1983, which eHpected employees' trusts in Section 56<b> was effective on 22 June 1957 while Rep. Act No. 4917 was enacted on 17 June 1967, long before the issuance of Pres. Decree No. 1959 on 15 Oct obet� 1984. A subseq~1ent statute, general in character as to its terms and application, is not to be construed as repealing a special or specific enact11ent, unless the legislative purpose to do so is manifested. This is so even if the provisions of the lattet� al�e sufficiently collpJ�ehensive to i ncl ~�de what was set fot~th . in the special act (Villegas v. ~S,tbido, G.R. No. L-31711, 30 Septe11ber 1971, 41 SCRA 190>. 1348

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4898, 4'300 TO 4940 - i.L - Notably, too, all the tax P''ovisions herein treated of come under Title II of the Tax Code on ~Income Tax." Section 21(d) 1 as a11ended by Rep. Act No. 1959, r�efers to the ~inal t~x on individuals and falls under Chapter II; Section 24<cc) to the final tax on corporations under Chapter III; Section 53 on withholding of final tax to Returns and Payment of Tax under Chapter VI; and Se~tion 56(b) to tax on Estates and Trusts covered by Chapter VII. Section 56<b>, taken in conj�Jncti.on with Section 56<a>, supra, explicitly excepts employees' trusts from "the taxes imposed by this Title." Since the final tax and the withholding thereof are embraced within the title on "Income Tax," it follows that said trust must be deemed ewempt therefrom. Otherwise, the eMception becomes meaningless. There can be no denying either that the final withholding taM is collected from incoae in respect of which employees' trusts are declared exempt <Sec. 56[b] 1 now 53(bl, Tax Code). The application of the withholdings system to interest on bank deposits or yield from deposit substitutes i.s essentially to maximize and expedite the collection of income taxes by requiring its payment at the source. If an employees� trusts like the GCL enjoys a tax-exempt status from income, we see no logic in withholding a certain percentage of that income which it is not supposed to pay in the first place. Petitioner also relies on Revenue Memorandum Circular 31-84, dated 30 October 1984, and Bureau of lnt~~nal Revenue Ruling No. 027-e-000-00-005-85, dated 14 January 1985. as authorities for the argu�ent that Pres. Decree No. 1959 withdrew the exemption of e�ployees' trusts from the withholding of the final taM on interest income. Said Circular and Ruling pronounced that the deletion of the exempting and preferential taM treatment provisions by Pres. Dec�~ee No. 1959 is a cleat~ �anifestation that the single 15~ tax rate is imposable on all interest inco�e regardless of the tax s t a t us ot~ chat~acter . of the .~eci pi ent the�~eof .. But since we herein r u l e t h a t Pres .. Decree No.

DECISION - C. T. A. CASE NO. 48'30, 4'300 TO 4'340 - 12 - 1'359 did not have the effect of revoking the tax exemption enjoyed by employees' trusts, reliance on those authorities is now misplaced. Disposing of the legal aspects of the claim, we next attempt to determine whether petitioner has established the factual elements of its cases. We rule in the negative. Notwithstanding the fact that petitio~er was able to prove the due approval of the individual retirement plan of each of the above trust funds, e~cept for C.T.A. Case No. 4923 which is absent in the records, and that most of the final taMes were withheld by the Central Bank of the Philippines on the interest income of the treasury bills it bO\Ight from the sa~e bank~ we are constrained to put little or no probative value to the other evidences it s1..1bmitt.ed. Respondent has a valid point when she objected to the for~ which Schedules of in GoveTnment Secu.~i t i e s and theil~ Con f i ,~mat ions of Sale Without Recourse/Confirmation Advices are being offered. ln reiteration, she argues that they did not establish the fact that the assets of the various .trust actually used in the purchase of the petitioner~ and~that the final taxes withheld thereon "'1350

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 48'38, 4'300 TO 4'34() - 13 - were in behalf of ~aid funds, and not by the petitioner, in its own juridical capacity as a banking institution. A~ can be gathered from the records, some of the treasury bills bought by petitioner through its Treasury Department were in turn sold to its Trust Department for the account of the various retirement funds. (Memm��anduat for the Petitioner, p. 81-82, CTA records) A painstaking SCI"Ut i ny of the Con fit� mat ion of Sale Without Recourse/Conftrmation Advice papers evidencing such sale shows that they were sold to the attention of either BPI INVESTMENT BANKING FOR VARIOUS TAX-EXEMPT ACCOUNTS or BPI INVESTMENT BA~~ING FOR TAXABLE ACCOUNTS. It is to be noted also that in the yeat' 1'3'3 1' or prior to the promulgation of the GCL case by the Honorable Supreme Court on March 23, 1'3'32, retirement plans were subjected to twenty percent (20") final tax on inte\''est and/or� yield on deposit substitute instruments paid or accrued beginning August 1, 1'386 pursuant to Executive Order No. 37 which took effect on same date. ~Retirement Plans, Exhibit "C" C. T. A. Case No~. 48'38, 4'300, 4902, 4907, 4'312, 4'313, etc.) From the above facts. it is clear that the Treasury Department sold treasury bills to BPI INVESTMENT BANKING and not to the Trust Department per s e, as claii!Jed by 1351

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. '�898, 4'300 TO 4'340 - 14 petitioner. The records do not reveal that they are one and the same Pntity. The former could be catprtng to other non-trust clients witt1 either taM-eKempt or taKable status, to trust clients with e i they� taM-eKempt 0\'' taMable status, or a miK of both. Even if the individual sale of treasury bills was r�eally made to the Tr-,Jst Depar�t ment o f pet i t i onet', it does not ~ean that such sale was for the particular trust funds involved herein. The sale could be for� the account of individuals and corporations aside plans. The testimony of Mrs. Antonia V. Paler�o beat" this out dur�irlg the hear�ing of Januar-y 31, 1'3'32. We quote: M Ml< KKK KKK Q. And as sPn i. Ol" c Ler�k of' the Tt"ust Dep.:u�tment, Mr�s. Witness, what ar�e some of you.r� i�por�tant f1..1nct ions? A. Among my f'unct ions, I r�ece i ve documgnts of individuals and corporations as well as retire�ent plans who would like to avail of the trust services of the bank. o. Al~e you familiar with these two acts of cases fo�~ which you wel~e asked to testify? A. "(e s. a. And how come you say, that, Ml~s. Wit.ness? 1352

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4898, 4900 TO 4940 - 15 A. Because retirement plans is one of the services which can be availed of in our Trust Department. ~X~ XXX XXX <TSN, Hearing of January 31, 1992, p. 10- ll, underscoring supplied> Of serious consideration, the legal scenario in the year 1991 was that retirement plans were taxable as to their incoae or interest and/or yield on deposit substitute instrument, which undoubtedly includes treasury bill&, and yet, as borne by the Confirmation of Sale Without Recourse/Confirmation Advice papers, the Treasury Department of petitioner sold treasury bills to the attention of the various tax-exeapt accounts. ln fine, it is not hard to i�agine that the sale of treasury bills to tax-exempt accounts at the time were really never intended for the trust funds involved herein. On the other hand, treasury bills sold by the Treasury Department to BPJ Investment Banking for the various taxable accounts could not possibly refer as a whole to the subject trust funds because they could very well have been invested to non-trust accounts or other categories of trust funds which were likewise taxable, absent any showing to the contrary. 1353

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 48'38, 4900 TO 4940 - 16 - From another angle, some of the treasury bills sold fail to reconcile wtth the averment of petitioner that said bills were bought from the Central Bank of the Phi 1 i pp in e s. By way of illustration, thF foll~wing treasury bills are not reflected on the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas' certification of treasury bills purchased by petitioner, to wit: St:n~i es Confirmation of Sale Exhibit Without Recourse/ Confir~ation Advice No. .l, . '30-11-10 75304, 7530, 000564 "9" 1 "B-1", "9-4.3" C'300411GX 0002.36 "B-1.3" ~- 76765 "B-16" 000'362 "B-21" .3. C'31RL3 000661 "B-4'3" 4. C'3tR;~ 1 5. C'300704GX 6. C'300'3505D/ C'9009505E &901E. "B-57" f,00�,59, OOO&E.O "B-E.o2", "B-E.4" 7. C900704GX The foregoing premises leaves us no recourse thus but to disregard the probative value of the Confirmation of Sale Wi thol.tt presented by petitioner. Consequently, the many Schedule of lnvest~ents in Government Securities prepared by petitioner have no leg to stand on, and are merely treated as self-serving statements. 1354

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4898, 4900 TO 4'340 - 17 vlndeed, as correctly posed by respondent, there is no evidence on t'ec01��d to pinpoint the fact that the assets of the various trust funds were actually used in the purchase of the treasury bills. What petitioner has proven is the transaction between the Treasury Oepart~ent and Tt'I.ASt Oepart~ent, but not the one between the TnJ.s t Department and the individual trust fund. Evidently, the deposit accounts of the trust funds will have to be debited in the pur�chase of the t r�ea s �.tr��y bills and the cor�r�espond i ng r�ece ipt Ot' acknowledgment, i. n �any convenient for�wt, w i. 11 have to be issued as pr�oof of, payment. Petitioner must have doc�.tmented Ol" made entr�ies on such transactions. It is to be observed that �J.nde1'�� the ~ather Terms and Conditions" clause of the Confirwtation of Sale Without Recourse document, more particularly numbers 2 and 4 thereof, any sale, transfer or assign~ent of the tr�easur�y bills shalL be valid only if said tr�ansact ion is registered in the books of the petitioner. Likewise, petitioner reserves the right to cancel the sale in the event that the check used for the purchase of the securities has been dishonored by the drawee bank/or the payment made ther�eon h.as not been cledred or collected. 1355

DECISION - C.T.A.- CASE NO. 4898, 4900 TO 4940 - L8 These cit'CI..lmsta.nces, howe vel" a.r-e not shown on the l"ecor�d s. We will just be relying on the good faith of the petitioner if we are going to believe as gospel tJ~uth the contents of the Schedules of lnvest�ents in Government Securities prepared by its employees. Such a situation is \.macceptabl e. decisions at~E' based on evidence on record and not on goop faith~ or speculation or unsupported assumptions. "It must bP stressed at this point that a refund of ta>ees partakes the nature of a ta>e exemption and are juris. against the t axpayet~ and in favor of the taxing authority." <Associated Sugar~ Inc. vs. CJR, CTA Case No. 2944, May 6~ 1994, p. 4 citing Insular Lu�ber Co. vs. CTA, 104 SCRA 721 and CIR vs. Rio Tuba NickPl Mining Corp., 207 SCRI=l 549) WHEREFORE~ in view of insufficiency of evidence necessary to support the clai�s of the petitioner, the instant consolidated cases under petition for review are het~eby DENIED fot~ lack of l!let~it. SO ORDERED. ~lQ,~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Judge 1:156'

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4690, 4900 TO 4940 - 19 - t..,:f!t_# AMON 0. DE E Associate J1.1d e I I J. C::::E.R-1 IF I CA-r I ON I hereby cert1fy that this decision was reached after due consultaticin a~ong the Members of the Court of TaK Appeals in accordance with Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution. ~'Q.o~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA p,~esi ding J'-�dge Court of Ta~ Appeals 1357