PETRON CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SECOND DIVISION - CTA CASE NO. 10438 Members: PETRON CORPORATION, Petitioner, -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and FERRER-FLORES, J].. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: fr.'vJ- f'PJ1-p . INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --�-, RESOLUTION I RINGPIS-LIBAN, ].: Before this Court is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated June 13, 2025) f.tled on July 3, 2025, with respondent's Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision dated 13 June 2025) filed on August 8, 2025. On June 13, 2025, the Court promulgated a Decision denying petitioner's claim for refund of excise taxes paid on the imported and locally-produced liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) for calendar year 2019 in the amount of !>34,397,783.90, for failure to sufficiently identify the subject LPG that were subsequently sold to various tax-exempt entities, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the present Petition for Rer;iew is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED." In its Motion, petitioner seeks reconsideration of the conclusions reached in the Court's Decision, raising the following grounds as bases thereof, viz.:

. RESOLUTION CT~-\ Case No. 10438 A. The Court erred in ruling that petitioner failed to sufficiently prove that the liquefied petroleum gas sold to tax-exempt entities are the same which it paid excise taxes in the year 2019. B. The Court erred in denying petitioner's exhibits due to the same being only "Reproductions of Photocopies Documents." C. The Court erred in denying petitioner's exhibits due to the same not being formally offered. As to the first ground, petitioner argues that the documents needed by the Court to trace the LPG sold to tax-exempt entities are found in the independent certified public accountant (ICPA) Report marked as Exhibit "P-42". 1 Petitioner asserts that the Schedule rifSales to T/ariotts Tax-Exempt EntitieJ~ attached in the ICPA Report as Annex H1, contains the data to breakdown and prove that the LPG on which the claimed excise taxes paid in the year 2019 were indeed sold to tax- exempt entities in the same year. Petitioner claims that the data includes, among others, the Customer Name; the Registration Certificate Number for Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA), Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), Clark Development Corporation (CDC); the Sales Invoice Number, and the Delivery Note Number. Thus, petitioner insists that revisiting the data existing in Annex H1 will assist the Court in tracing the quantity of the LPG sold to tax- exempt entities. \\lith regard to the second ground, petitioner further assails the Court's disallowance of 2,330,530.82 kg as volume sales, for not having valid Certificates of Registration and Tax Exemption (CRTEs). Petitioner argues that the Court erred in denying the CRTEs for being mere scanned copies and insists that a photocopy, being a duplicate, is admissible to the same extent as the original absent any genuine question as to the authenticity of the original or showing that it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate. As such, petitioner maintains that the CRTEs can be admitted especially since respondent failed to show that they are unjust or inequitable, in spite having the opportunity to do so during trial when the ICPA was presented on October 11, 2022 and J\!Iay 9, 2023, respectively. As to the third ground, petitioner likewise argues that the Court erred in denying its Exhibits "P-6268" and "P-6287" for not being formally offered as evidence. Petitioner submits that, as a rule, for evidence to be considered by the Court, the same must be offered during trial. However, petitioner cites the case of Elvira Mato Vda. De Onate, et al. v. Cottrt ofAppeals, et al./ wherein the Supreme Court relaxed the said rule and allowed evidence not formally offered to be admitted and considered so long as the evidence have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and the evidence must have been incorporated in the records of the case. Thus, petitioner seeks the kind indulgence of the Court to 1 Docket- Vol. I, pp. 350 to 379. G.R. No. 116149, November 23,1995.

. RESOLUTION CT"\ Case No. 10438 Page 3 of19 admit the denied exhibits considering that the said exhibits have met all the requirements in the aforementioned jurisprudence. On the other hand, in his Opposition, respondent maintains that the Court correctly found petitioner to have failed in proving its entitlement to the refund sought. Respondent further reiterates the Court's ruling and points out that claims for refund are strictly construed against the claimant and cannot be allowed unless granted in the most explicit and categorical language. After due consideration, the Court finds petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration bereft of merit. In the assailed Decision, the Court denied petitioner's claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate for failure to comply with the third requirement under Sections 204(C) and 229, in relation to Sections 1293 and 1354 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended. To recall, the basic requirements for a claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate for excise taxes to prosper are the following: 1. That petitioner's claim was flied within the two-year prescriptive period as provided for under Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997; 2. That the entity to which the petitioner sold the petroleum products is an entity exempt by law from indirect and direct taxes; and 3. That petitioner is the statutory taxpayer and actually paid the claimed excise taxes on the same petroleum products sold to the exempt entity. SEC. 129. Good.r Subjed to Ex�cise Ta,-x-es. - Excise taxes apply to goods manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sales or consumption or for any other disposition and to things imported. The excise tax imposed herein shall be in addition to the value-added tax imposed under Title IV. For purposes of this Title, excise taxes herein imposed and based on weight or volume capacity or any other physical unit or measurement shall be referred to as "specific tax" and an excise tax herein imposed and based on selling price or other specified value of the good shall be referred to as "ad valorem tax". SEC. 135. Petroleum ProdttdJ� Sold to Intemational Canier.r and Exempt Entities or Agemie.r. - Petroletun products sold to the following are exempt from excise tax: (a) International carriers of Philippine or foreign registry on their use or consumption outside the Philippines: Provided, That the petroleum products sold to these international carriers shall be stored in a bonded storage tank and may be disposed of only in accordance with the rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner; (b) Exempt entities or agencies covered by tax treaties, conventions and other international agreements for their use or consumption: Provided, however, That the country of said foreign international carrier or exempt entities or agencies exempts from similar taxes petroleum products sold to Philippine earners, entities or agencies; and (c) Entities which are by law exempt from direct and indirect taxes.

RESOLUTION CT"-\ Case No. 10438 As held in the assailed Decision, petitioner complied with the first requirement, partly complied with the sec-ond requirement, and failed to comply with the third requirement. Now, as to the first ground raised by petitioner in its Motion, petitioner argues that the data in the Scbedztle rfSales to Various Tax-Exempt Entities marked as Annex H1 by ICPA duly proves that the LPG on which the claimed excise taxes paid in the year 2019 were indeed sold to tax-exempt entities in the same year. Petitioner likewise attached in its Motion, an expanded Schedule ofSales to Various Tax-Exempt Entities referencing the Exhibit Numbers of the sales invoices and delivery notes in order to assist this Court in efficiently tracing and verifying the quantity of LPG sold to tax-exempt entities. In the interest of justice, the Court will revisit petitioner's compliance with the third requirement, which involves tracing the movement of petitioner's LPG from production and importation until it is delivered to petitioner's customers. Petitioner claims that it operates the Petron Bataan Refinery (PBR), where crude oil is processed into a full range of petroleum products including LPG. The LPG is then stored and comingled with imported LPG as allowed by Commingling Permit No. ELTRD (P)-028-02-19-26998 dated February 6, 2019 which is valid until December 31,2019.5 Petitioner pays excise taxes on locally produced LPG before their removal from the PBR at the rate of P2.00 per kilogram pursuant to Section 148(j) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Likewise, petitioner pays excise taxes on imported LPG at the same rate before removal or release from the custody of the Bureau of Customs (BOC) at various ports.6 The locally-produced and imported LPG are then withdrawn from the PBR and delivered either to petitioner's customers or to petitioner's various depots in the following locations: 1) Mandaue Depot, 2) Ormoc Depot, 3) Pasig Depot, 4) Rosario Depot, 5) San Fernando Depot, and 6) Batangas Depot for eventual sale and delivery to its customers, including tax- exempt entities.7 Locally-produced LPG The court-commissioned ICPA testified that petitioner makes advance excise tax deposits for its locally-produced LPG for taxable year 2019. And on September 2, 2019, petitioner applied its Tax Subsidy Availment Certificates (TSAC) issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to the Armed Forces of Exhibit "P-5", Docket- \To!. I, p. 516. r. Paragraphs 12 and 14, lvletnorandum for Petitioner, Docket- Vol. II, pp. 693 to 694. 7 Paragraphs 13, 15 and 20, l'vfetnorandutn for Petitioner, Docket - Vol. II, pp. 693 to 694, and Paragraph 16, Petitionfor RevieJJJ, Docket- \Tal. I, p. 10.

. RESOLUTION CT"-\ Case No. 10438 the Philippines Commissary and Exchange Services in the amount ofP950,000.00, in the aggregate amount of P22,840,201 ,039.50, as follows: 8 January 2019 Excise Tax Amount February 2019 p 2,545,000,000.00 2,370,000,000.00 i March 2019 April2019 I May 2019 August 2019 3,235,000,000.00 September 2019 2,295,000,000.00 October 2019 November 2019 77 5,000,000.00 December 2019 98,201,039.50 2,292,000,000.00 TOTAL 3,180,000,000.00 3,319,000,000.00 2, 728,000,000.00 P22,840,201,039 .50 However, examination of the payment confirmation details9 submitted by the ICPA showed that the amount P180,000,000.00 should be disallowed for not being properly supported. While the said payment is supported by a BIR eFPS Payment Details for the tax period March 12, 2019, it nonetheless shows an amount of PO.OO, and an un-validated bank BIR Payment Slip for the tax period March 13, 2019 in the amount of P120,000,000.00.10 Accordingly, the total excise tax payments for the taxable year 2019 should be adjusted to P22,660,201 ,039.50 (P22,840,201 ,039.50 less P180,000,000.00). Moreover, as of December 31, 2018 (the end of the previous taxable period), petitioner had a balance of advance excise tax deposits of P732,366,747.19, as evidenced by BIR Form No. 2200-P Excise Tax Return for the month of December 2018. 11 Thus, the total advance excise tax deposits available for taxable year 2019 amount to P23,392,567,786.69 (P732,366,747.19 plus P22,660,201,039.50). Also, as per the ICPA report, petitioner' excise taxes due and paid on all locally-manufactured petroleum products for taxable year 2019 amount to P22,931,747,768.65, to wit: 12 LPG Excise Tax Amount All other petroleum products p 393,527,018.86 22,538,220,7 49.79 TOTAL P22,931,747,768.65 i 8 A11mx B of ICP"\ Report, Exhibit "P-42", Docket- Vol. I, p. 374. See also Part II("-\)(1) of Exhibit "P-42", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 357 to 358. 9 Exhibits "P-6056" to "P-6135", USB submitted on June 8, 2022. Ill Exhibit "P-6079", USB submitted on June 8, 2022. 11 Exhibit "P-101", USB submitted on June 8, 2022. 11 Part II(A)(4) and (5) of Exhibit "P-42", Docket-\'ol. I, pp. 360 to 361.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10438 Based on the foregoing, petitioner's total advance excise tax deposits for the year 2019 of P23,392,567,786.69, including the balance of advance excise tax deposits from the previous taxable period of P732,366,747.19, is utilized as follows: Total advance excise tax deposits available P23,392,567 ,786.69 Less: Balance as of December 31, 2018 p 732,366,747.19 P22,931 ,747,768.65 p 460,820,018.04 Advance payments made in 2019 22,199,381,021.46 Total excise taxes due on all petroleum products for 2019 Balance as of December 31, 2019 Subsequently, the ICPA found that there is an overstatement in petitioner's balance of excess advance excise tax deposits as of December 31, 2019, which "does not have a'!)' impact on the daim for reftmd" of petitioner.13 Even so, the third requirement still needs petitioner to prove that the claimed excise taxes on the same petroleum products paid in the year 2019 were sold to the customers that are tax-exempt entities. The movement of petitioner's LPG from local production or importation including the payment of excise taxes due and withdrawal should be traced all the way to the delivery of the same to the tax-exempt entities. In doing so, petitioner offered the following documents, among others, to prove that excise taxes on the locally-produced and imported LPG are paid and later were withdrawn from the PBR and subsequently sold and delivered to petitioner's tax-exempt clients, to wit: 1. SAP-generated Official Registry Books (ORBs) 14 and Manual ORBs filed with the BIR for the year 201915 - monthly record wherein transactions in quantity or volume of receipts and removals of petroleum and other petroleum products, including imported and locally-manufactured LPG is entered;16 2. Excise Tax Returns (ETRs) with Schedule 1 Summary of Removals and Excise Tax Due on Petroleum Products Chargeable against Payments;17 3. Cargo Outturn Certificates (COCs) 18 - are SAP-generated internal documents prepared at the PBR which support the recording of the removals of petroleum and other petroleum products from the Refinery in the ORB and in the General Ledger;19 Cargo Intake Certificates (CICs)20 - SAP-generated internal documents prepared at the PBR which support the receipt of imported u Part IIV\.)(5) and (6) of Exhibit "P-42", Docket- \To!. I, pp. 361 to 363. 1 ~ Exhibits "P-13486" to "P-13497", USB filed on October 6, 2023. IS Exhibits "P-15962-1" to "P-15962-12", USB submitted on I\Iay 4, 2023. 11' Question & ~-\nswer No. 13, Exhibit "P-37", Docket- \To!. I, p. 202. 17 Exhibits "P-101" to "P-6055", USB submitted on June 8, 2022. 1g Exhibits "P-13681" to "P-13802", and "P-14108" to "P-15279", USB submitted on June 9, 2022. 19 Question & Answer No. 20, Exhibit "P-37", Docket- Vol. I, p. 205. 211 Exhibits "P-13803" to "P-13942", and "P-14547" to "P-15469", USB submitted on June 9, 2022.

RESOLUTION CT.-\ Case No. 10438 Page 7 of19 LPG by the Refinery in the Manual ORB and in the General Ledger;21 and Liquidation Statements (LSs)22- prepared at the terminal/depot which show the movement of receipts and issuances of LPG including those that are sold to various tax-exempt entity;23 4. Withdrawal Certificates (WCs)24 5. Sales Invoices (Sis);25 6. Delivery Notes (DNs);26 7. Cash Receipts.27 Thereafter, petitioner submitted on May 4, 2023, a USB containing a folder named Monthfy Manual ORB filed with BIR, which contains SAP-generated ORBs attached to BIR Form No. 261 Official Register Book of petitioner's Oil Manufacturing Operations in the PER for each month of the year 2019. An examination of the subject manual ORB for petitioner's LPG shows the following: 28 EXHIBIT 2019 Opening Production Receipts- Removals from Removals fro 111 NO. Balance (in kg) Imp/Local Local Production Importatiot January (in kg) (in kg) P-15962-1 February 48,150,781.00 (in kg) (in kg) P-15962-2 5,108,747.00 43,403,903.00 P-15962-3 i\Iarch 12,156,437.00 25,541,538.00 12,469,419.00 45,554,917.00 8,017,59 3.1111 P-15962-4 .-\pril 11,194,637.00 -1,662,153.00 39,334,166.00 5,031,53 ~.I I( I P-15962-5 i\Iay - 33,246,200.00 P-15962-6 June 3,489,975.00 -971,831.00 21,824,19 ...,J)II P-15962-7 July 7,680,079.00 -3,969,892.00 - 2,958,787.00 27,3 7 1,11 I) .(HI P-15962-8 August 4,793,168.00 1,435,355.00 32,699,22 6.1111 P-15962-9 September 15,660,784.00 44,816,583.00 30,635,241.00 - 28,178,()'7 --,.()I I P-15962-10 October 16,301,633.00 47,070,156.00 25,456,030.00 P-15962-11 November 11,700,658.00 45,064,121.00 47,536,734.00 - H,563,C,~ (J.III) P-15962-12 December 12,677,026.00 19,610,224.00 27,383,571.00 13,668,252.00 268,488,785.00 - 3,-181,1) 6.1)() Total - 1,29Ci,U5 3.11(1 25,896,001.00 4,834,027.00 47,446,659.00 911,29 1.11(1 42,782,842.00 - 31,761,157.00 ---~- 268,980,729.00 16,104,390.00 143,367,88 9.00 164,419,412.00 Notably, the necessary information for the month ofJanuary 2019 was left blank since it cannot be ascertained by the Court as Exhibit "P-15962-1" page 3 of 3 is unreadable. 21 Question & .-\nswer No. 13, Exhibit "P-37", Docket- Vol. I, p. 203. 22 Exhibits "P-15643" to "P-15961", USB submitted on June 9, 2022. 21 Part II(D)(1), Exhibit "P-42", Docket- Vol. I, p. 369. 2~ Exhibits "P-13560" to "P-13680", and "P-13943" to "P-15089", USB submitted on June 9, 2022. 25 Exhibits "P-6288" to "P-9876", USB submitted on June 8, 2022. 2(, Exhibits "P-9877" to "P-13485", USB submitted on June 8, 2022. 27 Exhibits "P-15470" to "P-15642", USB submitted on June 8, 2022. 2R USB filed on i\Iay 4, 2023.

RESOLUTION CT.-\. Case No. 10438 Meanwhile, petitioner's Summary of Monthly SAP Generated ORB shows the following: 29 EXHIBIT CY 2019 Total Amount of Excise Taxes for NO. January all Petroleum Products P-13486 p 3,558,138,629.39 P-13487 P-13488 February 2,686,961,427.62 P-13489 P-13490 March 3,355,611,299.00 P-13491 April 2,775,961,230.00 P-13492 P-13493 May 801,500,27 5.86 P-13494 P-13495 June 106,566,303.50 P-13496 P-13497 July 34,040,538.00 August 555,248,115.50 September 2,416,948,7 53.50 October 3,520,247' 158.00 November 3,7 50,757,730.50 December 3,512,292,691.12 Total P27 ,074,274,151.99 - - -- --- --- - - - - - - - - From the foregoing, the Court endeavoured to determine the volume of locally-produced LPG and the total excise taxes paid thereon, as follows: 30 EXHIBI CY 2019 Imported LPG Locally-produced Excise Tax Paid TNO. (in kg) LPG (in kg) �-- P-13486 January 959,750.00 35,695,272.00 p 4,248,883.00 27,442,961.00 71,390,544.00 2,717,651.00 23,731,094.00 P-13487 February 19,417,619.00 54,885,922.00 - P-13488 March 1,856,455.00 47,462,188.00 12,973,587.00 P-13489 April 16,335,4 70.00 - 38,835,238.00 19,426,230.00 P-13490 May 16,964,317.00 - 3,712,910.00 8,667,290.00 P-13491 June - - 1,844,365.00 P-13492 July 690,561.00 20,370,397.00 - 539,679.00 28,635,653.00 P-13493 August 26,183,105.00 - 85,367 '783.00 19,276,497.00 P-13494 September 202,609,053.00 40,740,794.00 57,271,306.00 P-13495 October 52,366,210.00 38,552,994.00 P-13496 November P-13497 December - Total -- P405,218,106.00 ---- -- -- ' It is further noted that the monthly SAP-generated ORBs do not indicate the starting balance of LPG volume at the beginning of the period. Moreover, the document is actually denominated as Summary oJProduct Deliveries & Taxes Paid or Applicable Thereon. A comparison of the figures in the SAP-generated ORBs with the Manual ORB filed with BIR shows that there are discrepancies, to which petitioner or the ICPA provided no explanation for the variances, as follows: 29 USB submitted on June 9, 2022, underscoring supplied. ' 1' USB submitted on June 8, 2022.

RESOLUTION CT.\ Case No. 10438 Removals from Locally-produced LPG (in kg) deliveries 2019 Local Production Difference I (in kg) per Manual per SAP-generated ORBs I ORBs* 35,695,272.00 27,442,961.00 -35,695,272.00 I January 23,731,094.00 18,111,956.00 I 19,417,619.00 15,603,072.00 i February 45,554,917.00 1,856,455.00 13,828,581.00 1'1 02,332.00 March 39,334,166.00 - - April 33,246,200.00 - - May 2,958,787.00 - - June - 20,3 70,397.00 28,635,653.00 5,525,604.00 July - 26,183,105.00 18,811,006.00 16,599,737.00 August - 19,276,497.00 12,484,660.00 September 25,896,001.00 202,609,053.00 66,371,676.00 October 47,446,659.00 November 42,782,842.00 December 31,761,157.00 Total 268,980,729.00 * Exduding]anua~J' 2019 Going back, petitioner's total withdrawals of LPG from the PBR for the year 2019 are supported by BIR Form No. 2200-P Excise Tax Return with attached Summary of Removals and Excise Tax Due on Petroleum Products Chargeable Against PaymentsY The ICPA's Monthly Summary of Breakdown of Quantity Removed and Equivalent Excise Taxes Due of All Petroleum Products shows the following, among others, to wit: 32 Tax Rate P2.00- LPG Reference 2019 Quantity in Kilo Tax Amount Annex (B) DJ JANUARY 35,695,272.00 p 71,390,544.00 D2 FEBRU~\RY 27,442,961.00 54,885,922.00 D3 MARCH 23,731,094.00 47,462,188.00 D4 APRIL 19,417,619.00 38,835,238.00 MAY 1,856,455.43 3,712,910.86 '-----� Ds D6 JUNE - - D7 JULY - - Ds AUGUST - - D9 SEPTEMBER 15,511,471.00 31,022,942.00 Dw OCTOBER 28,635,653.00 57,271,306.00 D11 NOVEMBER 25,196,405.00 50,392,810.00 DI2 DECEMBER 19,276,579.00 38,553,158.00 Total L. _ _J.26,J6-?,5_!>9.._43_ P393,527 ,018.86 ----- -� --�- ----------- Ideally, the foregoing should be supported by Withdrawal Certificates (WCs) and Cargo Outturn Certificates (COCs). However, the submitted \X/Cs show a total of32,104,850.00 k~3 of LPG removed from PBR, while COCs shows >I Exhibits "P-101" to "P-6055", USB marked as Exhibit "P-43-2" and USB submitted on October 6, 2023. ' 2 Anmx D ofiCPc\ Report, Exhibit "P-42", Docket- \rol. I, p. 376. See also USB submitted on June 8, 2022. .l.l Exhibits "P-13560" to "P-13680", USB filed on June 9, 2022.

RESOLUTION CT"~ Case No. 10438 Page10of19 a total of 36,056,715.00 kg of LPG removed from PBR.34 Unfortunately, petitioner offered no explanation or reconciliation to account for the discrepancies. More so, the COCs are not classified as to the destination of the withdrawn LPG. The Court then tried to ascertain how much volume of LPG were removed from PBR and transferred to the various terminal/ depot, as follows: Terminal/Depot Volume of LPG Transferred (in kg) per COCs Pasig 12,390,670.00 Mandaue 4,617,615.00 Batangas 14,712,191.00 Ormoc 1,211,015.00 Bacolod Iloilo 736,333.00 Jimenez Palawan 679,028.00 PBR 605,836.00 354,478.00 TOTAL 749,549.00 36,056,715.00 kg Imported LPG On the other hand, petitioner imported 220,773,050 kg of LPG having the equivalent excise taxes amounting to P441,546,100.00:35 Petron Bataan Refineq Volume in Excise Excise Taxes Due Batangas Kilograms Tax Rate and Paid to BOC Mandaue, Cebu Tacloban 81,944,252 P2.00 p 163,888,504.00 Tagaloan 94,704,274 P2.00 189,408,548.00 33,326,406 P2.00 66,652,812.00 Total Importations of LPG P2.00 12,510,824.00 6,255,412 P2.00 9,085,412.00 4,542,706 220,773,050 P441,546,100.00 The foregoing excise taxes on importations for the taxable year 2019 are supported by BOC Single Administrative Documents (SADs), Statements of Settlement of Duties and Taxes (SSDTs), BOC Payment Receipts, Bills of Lading, supplier invoices, and BIR Authority to Release Imported Goods (ATRIG).36 Examination of these documents shows that the same are in order and petitioner has proven that it paid the excise taxes in the amount of P441,546,100.00 on its importation of LPG from Petron Singapore Trading Pte. Ltd. for taxable year 2019. 34 Exhibits "P-13681" to "P-13802", USB filed on June 9, 2022. 33 Annex G ofiCP:\ Report, Exhibit "P-42", Docket- Vol. I, p. 374. See also Part II(B)(1) of Exhibit "P-42", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 365 to 366. y, Exhibits "P-6136" to "P-6267", USB submitted on June 8, 2022 and USB submitted on October 6, 2023.

RESOLUTION CT"\ Case No. 10438 Furthermore, per Schedule 1 of the Excise Tax Returns (ETRs) for the year 2019, excise taxes on imported LPG for the same taxable period amount to P82,472,338.00_37 At the rate of P2.00 per kilogram, this is equivalent to 41,236,169.00 kg of LPG removed for the year 2019. However, the withdrawals of LPG per WCs (BIR Form 2231) for petitioner's imported LPG is summarized as follows (only a portion of the table is shown below):38 Exhibit No. we Issuing Plant Receiving Plant Remarks Local or Imported? I I we c. ~:lg.:.:. 667SS 3atanga~ San =~'na~1do -trm:na -an~ -ruck - . ans~t .. f1'~l~C:rttd San r::~nanc!::: -e:�n; n,~ ~ank -~uc~ -,.ans:e .. r;;:;::;:,~d ? . ~39~~ 66736 33:cnsas Gasu Pas~g -e:nk 7ruck -~an:/tr mpc:ned :39.:s ..:..:c9c:: ~~-L-, rr1:crted - . .-.,.. ... ~ Gasu ?as, g -ank 7ruck -~ans.:er r. :3s.:c -~ � n:p8rted .:0)),) __ Gasu� Pas:g ""'"ank :i"uck -ran~:e,. o. :::.s.:-; ~- 8553:5 "r'L!:- Similarly, petitioner's COCs for the period January 2019 to December 2019 for its imported LPG is likewise summarized hereafter as follows (only a portion of the table is shown below): Exhibit No. coc Issuing Plant Receiving Plant Remarks Local or Imported? I coc . . r �""' .-. ~'"t.~!.{"V,C� :75:335 8a:cr:g,5s San Ft"nando :e. m:na :ank -ruck ;rans~t: .. �~1~;~8rted P-:~:09 :7527.: 3a:cnga:: Scr~ ~e~nandc -e��m~na. --ank ... ~uck -r.;ns:e:� :n~p::~:ed :675G2 ?L- L~:::a. ..., ...... ,.... Gasu, Pas:g -ank -~uck -,.ans~t:~ -� . - ._ ....... G ?-:.:::~ ~67 65~ ?L- l3asu: ?as:g ":""ank -;�uc~ --~a::sie~ Lc::a, ""'. .... . :675C: PL~ Gasu Pas g -:-2-r:k 7 ~uck -;ans7e .. Loca From the foregoing, the Court cannot verify the total withdrawals of imported LPG as the volume removed per \"'VCs and COCs are not indicated. Consequently, the volume of withdrawals cannot be classified as to the destination of the removed LPG. Sale of LPG to Tax-Exempt Entities Petitioner submitted sales invoices39 and delivery notes40 for its sales of LPG to tax-exempt entities in the year 2019 in the aggregate volume of 17,198,891.95 kg as follows: 41 Locally-produced Quantity of Excise Tax Amount of Excise Removals in kg Rate per kg Taxes 7,660,412.52 p 2.00 p 15,320,825.04 " 7 Annex D ofExhibit "P-42", Docket- \'ol. I, p. 376. "~ USB submitted on June 9, 2022. "9 Exhibits "P-6288" to "P-9876", USB submitted on June 8, 2022 and USB submitted on October 6, 2023. +11 Exhibits "P-9877" to "P-13485", USB submitted on June 8, 2022 and USB submitted on October 6, 2023. +I Anne"'"A of the ICPA Report, Exhibit "P-42", Docket- Vol. I, p. 373.

RESOLUTION CTA. Case No. 10438 I Imported 9,538,479.43 p 2.00 19,076,958.86 17,198,891.95 P34,397 ,783.90 Total Petitioner likewise submitted a Schedule if Sales- 2019 LPG,42 listing all of its tax-exempt customers per sales invoices with exhibit reference numbers and with columns for the corresponding invoice dates, delivety notes, and volume and amount of sales. Again, to comply with the third requirement, petitioner must be able to show the Court that the same sales came from its removals for which it paid excise taxes from J anuaty 2, 2019 until the end of December 2019. In doing so, petitioner submitted the monthly manual ORBs of its various terminals,43 with receipts that should tally with the WCs and/or COCs. However, the same was also not summarized, hence, the Court yet again endeavoured to summarize the same, to wit: Terminal/Depot I Beg. Balance I (in MT)44 I End. Balance Receipts Issues Batangas 540.071 24,584.00 24,404.00 1,515.108 Pasig 738.000 Mandaue 2,223,694.500 119,641.80 119,521.90 933.200 Ormoc 198,022.000 Rosario 41,484,417.00 43,015,119.50 1,903,693.400 San Fernando 287.000 4,267,166.00 4,321,636.80 TOTAL 49,035.00 48,641.00 988.000 24,584.00 24,404.00 462.000 46,071,263.209 47,654,650.350 -------- --- The Court again notes that the ORBs for Ormoc Terminal for the month of December 201945 and for Rosario Terminal for the month of January 201946 are unreadable. Also, the receipts are not specified whether they are locally- produced or imported LPG. Perforce, pursuant to Section 8(b) of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 2- 2018,47 petroleum products shall be liquidated and accounted for on a "First-In First-Out" (FIFO) method of inventoty: "SEC. 8. TRANSITORY PROVISION. - For the effective implementation of the Act, the following guidelines shall be followed during the transitory period: 42 USB submitted on June 9, 2022. .u Exhibits "P-15966-1" to "P15966-128", USB filed on l\Iay 4, 2023. 44 l\IT =metric ton. To convert metric ton to kilograms, multiply by 1000. 45 Exhibit "P-15966-36", USB submitted on l\Iay 4, 2023. -lr. Exhibit "P-15966-37", USB submitted onl\Iay 4, 2023. �17 SUBJECT: Providing for the Revised Tax Rates and Other Implementing Guidelines on Petroleum Products Pursuant to Republic "'\ct No. 10963, othe1wise known as the "Tax Reform for .\cceleration and Inclusion (TR..\IN) Law", issued] anuary 24, 2018.

RESOLUTION CT.-\ Case No. 10438 Page 13 of19 XXX b) Aa:ountingfor .rtockr or inventory q/goodr qjter each date q/~ffedivz!J q/the new excZ:re tax rateJ. These inventories of petroleum products taken prior to each date of effectivity shall be liquidated and accounted for on a "First-In First-Out" (FIFO) method of inventory. X X x" Herein, it can be safely deduced that the removals from petitioner's various terminals for the month ofJanuary 2019 (and probably in the succeeding months) include the beginning balance -which is essentially the LPG that have been removed from the PBR with excise taxes paid thereon upon removal in the previous taxable period. As such, the removals taken from the terminal's beginning inventory, if sold to tax-exempt entities, should not form part of petitioner's claim for refund. The ICPA reports that the (rptanti!J of removals and transfers of focaf!J-prodzmd LPG to the four terminals located in Mandatte, Ormoc, Pasig and Batangas from the dai!J Withdrawal Certificate per BIR Form 2231 which were dtt!J signed and attested qy the internal reventte rifficer on premise (vessel transfer)" and the aqttanti!J of removals of imported and fomf!J-produced LPG from Batangas terminal to San Fernando, Rosario, and Pasig from COC, CIC and WC (tank transfers)"were traced. Movement and transfers of ((focaf!J- prodttced LPG from Terminals to Industria/ from COC, Withdrawal Certific-ate and Liquidation Statement" and ((imported LPG from terminals to Indz.tstriaf from COC and Liqz.tidation Statement"were likewise traced.48 The ICPA prepared schedules of Liqztidation Statements Consolidated Schedztfe ofSafes for each of petitioner's terminals wherein the invoices issued are compared with the delivery notes and liquidation statements.49 Portions of the subject schedules are shown hereafter as follows: With I I I With I INVOICE NO. 1 VOLUME IAM.OUNT of Sales Ref Delivery Delivery LOCATION DATE Exme Taxes Invoice Page to PPaEgReVNV~C. Amount Importation ITaExxcDisuee lS per lS \la~dcu-: Note Notes Terminal 1ndustr1al \1andaue :�.landal:e provided provided \landau:: .\lar:daue :: :s 2~:s1 :~::c;css~ ~,-;_.:._,_\..\._, ~ ~ ~._..... '">('\ s::cs:css9: v :,669.C: .. ,-v�.J.\.'v 88CS:C9888 :..sse ~c ]C:: ~8 :~J:91 :c:CJ7C69~ 3:G.CC I 62:.cc s:�:s:csss.: 12: :s :c:sl :c:C87~693 3E:.c: l 722.CC \ s,:�~s::gs:~ IJ: _8 2C~9! :c:CC7C69~ ssa.c: 1 :.79t.cc \2~28:~::6: c: :s 2C~SI :c:C:S72793 I 2,::3c.c: l .:,36:;.cc I j +H Part II(D)(l), Exhibit "P-42", Docket- \'ol. I, p. 369. +~ USB submitted on June 9, 2022.

RESOLUTION CT"-\ Case No. 10438 Page14of19 With With I I I I I I I DATE I INVOICE AMOUNT Sales Ref Delivery Delivery Page to lS PERWC Amount er Exm. e lOCATION VOlUME of Excise . Terminal Page No.I l 5 p !Importation Tax Due NO. InvoiCe Note Notes Industrial Taxes prov1'd ed proV'lded c: i\s5a;ic (;nd~J::~ia! Cu5:crnes)! Ci 20l9/ lClG:JSG62B! 8.538.~~ I :?,C6C.f8 �'' SC08CS59~.6 I 1.2.3,4.s.6l 1,2 ! 1241873.CC Rcsar;c (!nd:Js:nal c~;s:cmes.l I c: 87 2Cl9l ~c:c~scs.:.: I 7,~.!8.36 I :5.696.72 I 8CCS035666 i ~I 1.., J J - , ), l' 2 i. 2 o)"�'''i''r'a�" <.i.c.;<. ,a. ��-�..-t��l,,n,.;,,b-,-rI�al(J�.',-u""..l e.:-.I�i\n'"�'-��v-�;�_,r.,.�:._o_, i1�.;�.~�_:_��.'.;-..','.L...'.,"...',~"._,\ ,_,, --�-- "'' , .. .:.;~.�~~ �~CSGS5354 1I. """ '.6- -\ l, .., J' 1-t, ) .. tJ I�, . . -. .!., .:.. j' ..,, ), tJ 1.2 �s��l� .�� i ,. - I ; al--� I '8 "h '3 QnoJo(.:'lo'''""' \��/i,,,l;,'1��(''I \,.,'1'.',C�I"I'lt',."'I I rv�- _'-,"., 7-'0-'-� .:. ...... 0...',;.c:.!,';-;'-,';-.'-! u,:J_, ..)..,_0_. ��7,.., _ _,._ SCGSOS4029 l, 21 3-' 4. 51 6 1. 2 [ I I INVOICE With With l I I Sales Ref Delivery Delivery Page to lS PER we Page Amount Terminal per lS I NO. No. Industrial LOCATION I DATE VOlUME AMOUNT I� Note Notes Excise j of Excise llVOICe Importation Tax Due/ Taxes prOVI'd ed provided ~ :�:,:cc.oJ Ormcc o:c~20l5 ~o::Jc~7.3~l 2C,2G~.C:iJ .J SOOS079350 l 1, 2. 3,.! :O,:iCO.CO l' 11 2: 3, 4 9,85C.OC Orm~c ~: C7 2Cl9 iJiS:JS~ 759 9,85~.02 :9, 7C8.CO ' S0~8GS~1~2 1, 2, 3, 4 9.71C.CO I l, 2, 3, 4 o~mcc ~,: 102C:�; ~C~C~S5532 9,l-.~:u�"\ .;._".'�.'"..\. :S,.!2G.CO : 8C0809l676 l :~J80.C8 I ' t ~- 3, 4 :.: Ormcc c~ 20:9 ::.o:c:Sl576 ~J, 370.C~ ~C, 7-*C.C~ / 80C'809692G .!. Ormcc 0: 15 2C:9 2:Jt.C.CJ :c:c~c239S ~ ." : 01i ,..,,... 8008101292 1 ~'-' 1 -l.o�.t�VV I With With I I INVOICE AMOUNT SI Ref Delivery Der1very PERwc Page to I Amount Excise II of Exc1.se 1nvaoe1.sce Page No. LS I NO. LOCATION I DATE j VOLUME Note Notes per LS Importation Tax Due Taxes . prOVI'ded Industrial Terminal prOVIded a�: Pas1g Gasul l6 2-~:9 ~0~8Jt..:.Sl7 :,920.G0 ~,S4�J.C0 ,. SCOBlC3122 l7.322.CO / SCOS:i.03l271 ./ Pdsrg Gas..J! Vll6 28:9 :c:cc&.:s2c ~,CCl.8: 8,CJ:.C8 o: "as1g Ga;ui :6 ~J:s :c::C:J6SS~: 7,26~.c: :.:,522.CC J/ SCOS103229 Pas1g Gascil D2 :6 2;;�l9 ~c:c:css~: 3,CCG. ~5 6,CCJ.3C SC08i05265 scos:cs2s21 ./ l Pa;1i (Jas . d ~~ 16 2C:9 :2.!.CC65522 :.6"J~C ;,2t>~.s: With With I I I I I I . I INVOICE N0. lSI Sales lrWOI.Ce LOCATION I DATE VOlUME AMOUNT Ref Delivery Delivery Page to PER VVC Pag.e Amount lm ortat10n Excise of Excise Note Notes Terminal No. lndustnal per lS p Tax Due Taxes provided provided ~an F::rnanc!J (Tra~1sshvw:n:1 ~: 02 2.:::5 .iClc-o.:scs7 s,nc.~:c ! l8,~!C.CO SCGSC79SO-; l. 2, 3 l, 2 5,220.00 I18,5Gl.G8 ) I San ~erndnd:; (Transsh:p:T1en:~ 2: C3 ~029 l2:CJ~SC~7 S,2~0.C�J l6.~2G.SJ SCQSOSC93~ j I I ~ 2, ~. :2 --1----- San Fernandc li'0'1ssh:prnen:i C:~ c.:. 2C.i9 :0:o:::sc6:: ~,;c:.c::; ~.6J2.CJ I .; 8COSC8~2D2 i l 2, 3 I 1.2 I Sar: F~rnando (Tra'ls5hlpm~n:! Cl 03 1~19 lGlC-JS3~Sl 7,99:J.C0 ~s,~sc:.s�c BCC0G8:970\ J 2. 3 l ~- 2 SOCSCS32-~71 -/ c: c.: SaP Fenandc (T~a'1s~hrr.r:�~en:�, =~:s 1c:c~.:s~:7 S,l9J.c: 1f, 3SS.C8j !, 2, ~. 1, 2 8,19C .Cc i Verily, the foregoing schedules consist of petitioner's sales of all LPG, not just the quantity sold to its tax-exempt customers. Petitioner failed to identify which of the foregoing pertains to its sales to tax-exempt entities, which is the subject of the present claim for refund. Correspondingly, without references corresponding to the exhibit number of the invoices, WCs, and Liquidation Statements (LSs), the Court cannot accurately ascertain the veracity of the foregoing findings. Furthermore, petitioner's submission of the USB containing soft copies of Annex Hl is of no moment, as the information therein cannot fully assist the Court verify or confirm the "tracing" done by the ICPA of petitioner's LPG from the various terminals to its tax-exempt customers. Annex Hl is basically the same as the S cbedu!e ifSales- 2019 LPG already submitted by petitioner on June 9, 2022.

RESOLUTION CT.-\ Case No. 10438 Page15of19 Hence, even if the said submission were taken into consideration, the decision of the Court will not be greatly affected as insisted by petitioner. Based on all of the foregoing, petitioner still failed to prove that the LPG on which the claimed excise taxes paid in the year 2019 were indeed sold to tax- exempt entities in the same year, considering that the quantity of LPG removed (with the corresponding excise taxes) which were subsequently sold to tax-exempt entities cannot be fully traced to the excise tax returns and importation documents. As a result, petitioner failed to comply with the third requirement. It cannot be over-emphasized that in claims for refund, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to prove entitlement to such refund. It is incumbent upon petitioner to show clearly its basis for claiming that it is entitled to a tax refund. In the same line, tax refunds are like tax exemptions, and "the governing principle is that tax exemptions are to be construed in strictissimijztris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority; xxx he who claims a refund or exemption from taxes has the burden of justifying the exemption by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted."50 Based on the foregoing, it is crucial that "party litigants should prove every minute aspect of their cases."51 This entails clear and careful presentation, organization, and classification of the documents - and the information contained therein- in a manner that will convince the Court that its claim is justified based on facts and law. With regard to the second ground, petitioner argues that the Court should have considered its exhibits despite being reproductions of photocopied documents, and that the following volume of sales be considered, to prove that it fully complied with the second requirement, to wit: To entities with CRTEs not validated by the ICPA 2,330,530.82 kgs Supported by invoices not offered as evidence 138,137.47 kgs Total 2,468,668.29 kg The Court does not agree. To reiterate, the entities with PEZA Certifications and CRTEs marked as "Reproduction of Photocopied Document" was already taken into account by the Court, BUT only as to those entities with PEZA Certijic'(!tions and CRTEs that were duly validated by the court-commissioned ICPA, the assailed Decision partly reads: "Examination of the submitted PEZA Cert~fimtion.r and CertijicateJ qf Regi.rtration and Tax Exemption (CRTEs) issued by SMBA and CDC 5� Compagnie Finalhiere SttcreJ" Et Denree.r v. Commi.r.riomr ofi11temal fuvmtte, G.R. No. 133834, .-\ugust 28, 2006. 5! c:ommi.rJioner olfntemal futmme v. J\!Ianila 1\!Iining Cotporatioll, G.R. No. 153204, .-\.ugust 31, 2005.

RESOLUTION CT/1. Case No. 10438 Page16of19 shows that there is no CRTE submitted for Cebu Swallow Eishin Corp., and all PEZ.A Cert~jicatiom and CRTEs were marked 'Reproduction of Photocopied Document'. Notably, the Court-commissioned ICPA, Ms. Normita L. Villaruz, stated the following in her report: '2. The original copies of the Certificates of Registration and Tax Exemption are retained by the customers and electronics [Ji(j copies were provided to Petron. We validated the registration and tax exemption of the customers of Petron with the respective government agencies and confirmed the authenticity of the scanned copy certificates except for the following customers: Name of Entities Registration Validity Period Certification No. .August 30, 2018 - SUBIC BAY TO\"X!N CENTER, August 29, 2021 INC. 2010-0117 JOHNSON CONTROLS- 1997-0022 June 18, 2018- June HITACHI AIR CONDITIONING 1999-0024 17,2021 PHILIPPINES, INC. 2018-510 NIDEC SUBIC PHILIPPINES December 04, 2018- CORPORATION 92-056 December 03, 2021 EIGHT INTEGRATED November 09, 2018- DEVELOPMENT CORP. 10-79 November 8, 2021 SWALLOW GLOVE CEBU 93-55 CORPORATION FORMERLY January 1, 2019- June CEBU SWALLOW-EISHIN 30,2019 CORPORATION DAIKI OM r\LUMINIUM For the year 2019 INDUSTRY (PHILIPPINES}, INC. January 1, 2019- June FCC (PHILIPPINES) CORP. 30,2019" However, in the ICPA Supplemental Report dated May 2, 2023, the ICPA indicated: '4. As stated on page 4 (C) (6) of our Report dated June 06,2022, we requested Clark Development Corporation (CDC) to provide Certificate of Registration of Petron's customers to confirm their registration and eligibility for tax-exemption under Republic Act 9400 of CDC. We received from CDC a response letter dated June 09, 2022, signed by the Officer-in-Charge, Business Development and Business Enhancement Group, confirming the issuance of Certificate of Registration and Tax Exemption (CRTE No. 2018-510) to Eight Integrated Development Corp. (EIDC) for the period January 1, 2019 to December 31,2019 (Exhibit P- 15965).' Further, the PEZA Certifimtiom and CRTEs submitted are valid only for the period indicated therein, z:e., January 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019,

RESOLUTION CT.-\. Case No. 10438 July 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019, and/or for the year 2019 only."52 (Citation.r omitted and tmdemvring added) Similarly, the Court is not unaware that when the original document is unavailable, photocopies may be admitted as secondary evidence, provided the same complied with Section 5, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of CourtY Inevitably, in order that secondary evidence may be admissible, there must be proof by satisfactory evidence of (1) due execution of the original; (2) loss, destruction or unavailability of all such originals and (3) reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for or attempt to produce the originaP4 In this case, petitioner was not able to sufficiently prove compliance with the aforementioned requirements. Hence, only those PEZA Certifications and CRTEs that were verified and validated by the ICPA were considered by the Court. As to the last and third ground in its Motion, petitioner argues that Exhibits "P-6268" to "P-6287" form part of the ICPA Report and these were identified and verified by the ICPA as faithful reproductions of the original. As such, petitioner asserts that although said exhibits were not formally offered, these exhibits may still be admitted, considering they have been duly identified by the ICPA and have been incorporated in the records of the case. Again, the Court does not agree. Perusal of the ICPA's testimony shows that Exhibits "P-6268" to "P- 6287" were not duly identified contrary to petitioner's allegation, to wit: 55 11. Q: Ms. Witness, I am showing (to) you documents which are mentioned in your ICP.A Report as documents which were previously presented, what relation do these documents have with the documents you mentioned: I. ��> :. ��. � �., c: ��� .,. Exhibit Reference Particulars P-101 to P-6055 Excise Tax Returns I �.. P-6056 to P-6135 Payment Confirmation Details P-6136 to P-6267 Importation Documents P-6288 to P-9876 Sales Invoices P-9877 to P-13485 Deliveq Notes P-13486 to P-13497 S.AP Generated Official Register Book ,... 52 Decision, pp. 20 to 21. 5:\ SEC.5 fr�"J;etl original dommen! i.r ttllavai!able. -\\!hen the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. 5./ Repub!it" ofthe PIJilippine.r v. Marw.r-Mallotoc, eta!., G.R. No. 171701, February 8, 2012, adopting the ruling of the Sandiganbayan. JJ Exhibit "P-41",Juditia!Afjidavit ?fN01mita Vi/lantz dated October 6, 2022, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 421 to 438.

RESOLUTION CT"\ Case No. 10438 P-13498 to P-13554 Certificate of Registration with PEZA, SBMA, and CDC; Request Letters P-13555 to P-13559 Related Tax Regulations P-13560 to P-15469 Withdrawal Certificates, Cargo Outturn Certificates and Cargo Intake Certificates P-15470 to P-15642 Cash Receipts P-15643 to P-15688 Liquidation Statements of Mandaue P-15689 to P-15776 Liquidation Statements of Rosario, Cavite P-15777 to P-15826 Liquidation Statements of Onnoc P-15827 to P-15909 Liquidation Statements of I P-1591 0 to P-15961 Ugong, Pasig I Liquidation Statements of San I Fernando I A: These are the documents that I identified ln my ' Independent CPA Report. The summanes of these documentary exhibits are contained in excel files saved in the USB flash drive attached in the document with the subject Motion to Admit dated June 9, 2022, marked as Exhibit P-44-2. The documents mentioned above were photocopied from the original and certified true copy of the documents 111 Petitioner's files. Copies of the documents submitted to the Honorable Court are faithful reproductions thereof or are original printouts from the Petitioner's SAP system. Consequently, the Court cannot still consider Exhibits "P-6268" to "P- 6287" in its Decision due to petitioner's failure to duly identify the same. Again, it is not the duty of the government to disprove a taxpayer's claim for refund but, rather, the burden of establishing the factual basis of a claim for a refund rests on the taxpayer, which must still present substantial evidence to prove its right thereto. An applicant for a claim for tax refund or tax credit must not only prove entitlement to the claim but also compliance with all the documentary and evidentiary requirements. 56 Herein, albeit submitting various voluminous documents to support its claim, petitioner unfortunately failed to clearly present the factual bases for its entitlement in compliance with all the evidentiary requirements for its claim for refund to prosper. In view of the foregoing disquisitions, there being no new matter or substantial issue raised by petitioner in its Motion for Reconsideration, the Court 56 Ea.rtem Te!ewrr1munimtion.r P/Jilippine.r, Im: v. Commi.rJiomr oflntemal Revemte, G.R. No. 183531, .i\Iarch 25, 2015, citing].RA. P/Jilippille.r, Inc. v. Commi.�"Jioner o(Intema! Re!Je!Uie, G.R. No. 171307, "\ugust 28, 2013.

RESOLUTION CT"-\ Case No. 10438 finds no compelling reason to justify the reversal or modification of its findings in the Decision promulgated on june 13,2025. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated June 13, 2025) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. L.~ 7'---- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice We Concur: On Official Busines~ � MARIA ROWENA MODESTO SAN-PEDRO Associate Justice ~#.~ CORA.7&'1N G. FERRER~FLORES Associate Justice