COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MASTERCARD TRANSACTION SERVICES (PHILIPPINES) INC. (Formerly, NEW YORK BAY PHILIPPINES, INC.)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 2915 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 10417) Petitioner, - versus - NEW YORK BAY PHILIPPINES, CTA EB NO. 2916 INC., (CTA Case No. 10417) Respondent. Present: X--------- ----------------X RINGPIS-LIBAN, A cting P.J., M ANAHAN, NEW YORK BAY PHILIPPINES, INC., BACORRO-VILLEN A, Petitioner, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, -versus - CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ. Promulgated: COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. X- -- - - - -- --- -- - -- - - - - - -- -- - - - -- - -- --- -- -- - - -- -- - -- - X DECISION REYES-FAJARDO, J.:

DECISION CTA EB NOS. 2913 & 2916 (CTA C1se No. 10417) PJge 2 of 1-l We resolve the Petitions for Review, 1 filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) and New York Bay Philippines, Inc. (NYBP), assailing the Decision dated October 4, 20232 and Resolution dated April 19, 2024' rendered by Court's Special Second Division (Court in Division) in CTA Case No. 10417. The assailed Decision and Resolution partially granted NYBP's claim for refund of its excess and unutilized input value-added tax (VAT) attributable to its zero-rated sales for the four quarters of the calendar year (CY) 2018 in the reduced amount of f'31,303,243.81. The facts follow. The CIR is the duly appointed official vested under the appropriate laws with authority to carry out functions, duties, and responsibilities of his office, including, inter alia, the power to decide, approve, and grant refunds or tax credits of excess and unutilized input VAT under the pertinent provisions of theNational Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended and other tax laws, rules, and regulations. He holds office at the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), Building, Diliman, Quezon City. NYBP is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, with principal place of business at Units 2- 7, Level 18 IBP Tower, Julia Vargas Avenue, Ortigas Center, Fasig City. It is registered with the BIR, Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 43A, as a VAT taxpayer in accordance with Section 236, NIRC, as amended, with Taxpayer Identification No. (TIN) 000-217-994-000. On July 15, 2020, NYBP filed with the BIR VAT Credit Audit Division, an administrative claim for refund of, or issuance of a Tax Credit Certificate (TCC) covering its excess and unutilized input VAT for the four (4) quarters of CY 2018, in the total amount of P38,046,300.41. On November 6, 2020, NYBP received a letter from the CIR, denying its administrative claim for refund, or issuance of TCC, in the full amount ofP38,046,300.41, representing its alleged excess and unutilized input VAT for CY 2018. Rollo (CTA EB No. 2913), pp. 7lo 21; Rollo (CTA EB No. 2916), pp. 6lo 24. Rollo (CT A EB No. 2915), pp. 29 lo 69; Rollo (CT A EB No. 2916), pp. :11 to 71. Rollo (CT A EB No. 2915), pp. 71 to 82; Rollo (CT A EB No. 2916), pp. 7:lto S-l.

DECISION CTA EB NOS. 2915 & 2916 (CTA Cdse No. 10~17) Page '\ of H On December 7, 2020, NYBP filed a Petition of Review before the Court in Division, docketed as CIA Case No. 10417. In the assailed Decision dated October 4, 2023, the Court in Division found that NYBP's administrative and judicial claims for refund of excess and unutilized input VAT for CY 2018 were timely filed in accordance with Section 112 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended. Out of the total amount of 1"38,046,300.41 claimed as input VAT refund/ credit, the Court in Division found 1"31,303,243.81 to be duly substantiated by competent evidence. On the other hand, 1"6,743,056.60 worth of input VAT were disallowed due to: (1) unreadable official receipt (OR); (2) unreadable amount breakdown in OR; (3) failure to indicate the nature of services; (4) VAT not indicated and out-of-period invoices; (5) adverse findings by the Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA); and (6) failure to refute the BIR's findings. For this reason, the Court in Division allowed the remainder in the amount of 1"31,303,243.81 as NYBP's refundable excess and unutilized input VAT for CY 2018: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petitio11 for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordinglv, [the CIR] is ORDERED to REFUND or ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of [NYBP] the amount of THIRTY- ONE MILLION THREE HUNDRED THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FORTY-THREE PESOS AND 81/100 (P31,303,243.81), representing its excess and unutilized input [VAT]. SO ORDERED. NYBP filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated October 4, 2023).~ Likewise, the CIR filed his own Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 04 October 2023)." Under Resolution dated April 19, 2024}' the Court in Division ruled in the following fashion: " Dockl�L (CTA Cds<' No. 10~17), pp. o7~-oR7. 3 /d. ill pp. 871-881. n Supra nolP ~.

DECISION CTA EB NOS. 2913 & 2916 (CT A Cas<' No. 10~17) Pdg<' ~ ofH WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motio11 for Partin/ Reco11sidemtioll (Re: Decisio11 dnted October 4, 2023) and respondent's Motio11 for Partin! Recollsidemtioll (Re: Decisio11 pro111ulgnted 011 04 October 2023) are both DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Hence, NYBP's and CIR's Petitions for Review. ISSUE Did the Court in Division err in partially granting NYBP's claim for refund of its excess and unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for the four quarters of the calendar year 2018 in the reduced amount of 1'31,303,243.81? The CIR's Petition for Review (CTA EB No. 2915) The CIR faults the Court in Division for giving weight to documents that were not proffered during the administrative proceedings, citing Pilipinas Total Gas, inc. v. Commissioner ofinternal Revenue (Total Gas)? in support thereof. He contends that NYBP was not able to prove that its client for the subject sales was a non-resident foreign corporation (NRFC) not doing business in the Philippines, which is fatal to its claim for zero-rated. sales. He further argues that NYBP failed to overcome the burden that the subject input tax being claimed remained unutilized or had not been applied against any output tax in the succeeding quarters. Via Comment (Re: [the CIR]'s Petition for Review dated May 24, 2024),8 NYBP retorts that: (1) the Court in Division is not precluded. from appreciating evidence not presented in the administrative claim with the BIR; (2) it sufficiently proved that its lone service-recipient is not engaged in any trade or business in the G.R. No. 207112, DPcl'mhPr 8, 2013. " Rollo (CT A EB Nn. 2913), pp. 92-102.

DECISION CT A EB NOS. 2915 & 291h (CTA CusP No. 10-!17) Pu!j<' 5 of H country; and (3) the claimed input VAT remained unutilized and not been applied against any output tax. NYBP's Petition for Review (CTA EB No. 2916) NYBP disputes the Court in Division for disallowing its input VAT credits, and counters that: (1) the admitted physical copies of the unreadable scanned copies of official receipts (ORs) are clear and legible, and (2) the nature of its supplier's services can be ascertained from the name of NYBP' s suppliers, related billing statements and invoices issued by the supplier. The CIR failed to interpose its comment on the NYBP's Petition for Review, despite notice." RULING We deny both Petitions. The CIR's Petition for Review (CTA EB No. 2915) It bears noting that the CIR belatedly filed his Motion for Partial Reconsideration beyond the reglementary period. Specifically, Section 1, Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA) requires the filing of a motion for reconsideration within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the decision. Relatedly, Baldovino- Torres v. Torres et a/.,10 clarified that the reckoning of the (15) fifteen-day period is based on the date the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) receives the decision, as principal counsel for the government. " RPcords Verification [Rc>porl] dalc>d 5l'plPmlwr 16, 202-l, i"uPd hy tlw Court of Tax Appl'als- judicial R<'wrJs Division (CTA-)RD). Rollo (CTA EB No. 2911i), p. 103. 1n C.R. No. 2-1-8673, 20 July 2022.

DECISION CT A EB NOS. 2915 & 291o (CTA Cusc� No. 10-!17) Pugc� o of H Here, the OSG received the Assailed Decision on October 11, 2023.11 The CIR, through the OSG had until October 26, 2023 to file the motion. However, it was belatedly filed on October 27, 2023. Hence, the decision became final as to the CIR, barring further rev1ew. Verily, the timely filing of a motion for reconsideration or new trial before the CTA Division is a mandatory prerequisite to an appeal to the CIA En Banc.12 At any rate, even setting aside this procedural infirmity, the petition remains bereft of merit. We discuss. First. The CIR's restrictive interpretation of Total Gas 1s unavailing. To clarify, Total Gas envisioned two (2) scenarios in an administrative claim for input VAT refund, namely: (1) dismissal thereof by the BIR due to the taxpayer's failure to submit complete documents, despite the former's notice or request; or, (2) inaction tantamount to a denial, or denial other than due to taxpayer's failure to submit complete documents despite notice or request. In the first scenario, the refund claimant must show the Court its entitlement to a VAT refund under substantive law, and submission of complete supporting documents at administrative level requested by the BIR. In the second situation, the refund claimant may present all evidence to prove its entitlement to a VAT refund, and the Court will consider all evidence offered even those not presented before respondent at the administrative levelY The CIR's denial of NYBP's administrative claim for input VAT refund falls under the second situation. Specifically, NYBP's '' Rollo (CT A EB No. 2910), p. ~0. " Sec Connnissioncr ofinternal Revenue u. Script2010, Inc., G.R. No. 2666-!1, FehruMy 17, 2025. 1< Commissioner of Jntcmal Rcucmtc u. Carmen Copper Corporatio11, CTA EB Nos. 2735 & 27-1::1, NovPmher 26, 202-:l citing Pilipinas Total Gas Inc. Z'. Cmnmissioncr of httcrnal Revenue, G.R. No. 207112, D<'ll'mlwr B, 2015 citing Atlas Consolidated Mining and Dcvc/opnrmt Corporation v. Conmrissioner oflnten/lll Rn,cnnc, G.R. No. 1-!5526, Murch 1fi, 2007.

DECISION CT A EB NOS. 2915 & 291A (CTA C1sl' No. 1Ll~17) Page 7 of H VAT refund claim was denied because of non-compliance with invoicing requirements prescribed under 3.2 of Annex "A.l" of RMC No. 47-2019, among others.1~ Therefore, sans notice of deficiency in NYBP' s documentation, the Court is not precluded from considering evidence proffered by NYBP, regardless of whether the same was presented before the BIR. Second. The CIR' s claim that NYBP failed to establish that its client was an NRFC not doing business in the Philippines is unpersuasive. Commissioner of1nternal Revenue v. Deutsche Knowledge Seruices Pte. Ltd. (Deutsche)15 discussed the documents required to establish prima facie evidence to be considered as an NRFC not doing business in the Philippines, thus: ...To the Court's mind, the SEC Certifications of Non-Registration show that their affiliates are foreign corporations. On the other hand, the articles of association/ certificates of incorporation stating that these affiliates are registered to operate in their respective home countries, outside the Philippines are prima facie evidence that their clients are not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines.16 Relatedly, Commissioner of Internal RC"uenue v. Asalus (Asalus)1 7 defined prima facie evidence as "one which that will establish a fact or sustain a judgment unless contradictory evidence is produced." NYBP submitted both the Articles of Incorporation1H and the SEC Certification of Non-Registration19 of its lone client, Trans-Fast Remittance LLC. Following Deutsche and Asalus, in the absence of any contradictory evidence from the CIR, such documents constitute sufficient proof to establish that said client is an NRFC not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines. Lastly. The CIR's contention that NYBP failed to prove that the subject input tax being claimed remained unutilized or had not been 14 Exhihil "P-15," Dockl'l (CTA C1sl' No. 10~17), Volunw I, pp. ~28-~29. 1:' G.R. No. 2'\~H5, july 15, 2020. Emph.:~!'>is supplil~J. G.R. No. 221590, fphruMy 22,2017. Exhihil "P-1A," DockPL (CTA CdSP No. 10~17), Volurrw I, pp. ~30-535. Exhihil "P-17," Dockl'L (CTA ClSt' No. 10~17), VolumL' I, p. 51A.

DECISION CTA EB NOS. 2~13 & 2~16 (CTA Cosc� No.10~17) Poge 8 of 1..1 applied against any output tax m the succeeding quarters rs unfounded. Section llO(C) of the NIRC, as amended, merely requires that the amount of input VAT claimed for refund should be deducted from the accumulated input VAT as of the month or quarter when such claim is filed, viz.: SEC. 110. Tnx Credits.- (C) Deterlllillnlioll of Crcditnble I11p111 Tnx - The sum of the excess input tax carried over from the preceding month or quarter and the input tax creditable to a VAT-registered person during the taxable month or quarter shall be reduced by the amount of any claim for refund or tax-credit for value-added tax and other adjustments, such as purchase returns or allowances and input tax attributable to exempt sale.2� Here, NYBP's input VAT of 1"38,046,300.41 was carried over to the succeeding quarter/period but remained unutilized until it was deducted as "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed" 21 in its Quarterly VAT Return for the 1st quarter of CY 2019.22 Hence, the claimed input VAT no longer formed part of the excess input VAT of 1"7,332,025.74 at the end of said quarter. The claimed input VAT could not have been carried over or utilized in the succeeding quarters of CY 2019. From all the foregoing, the CIR's petition shall fail. NYBP's Petition for Review (CTA EB No. 2916) NYBP contends that the Court in Division erred in disallowing its input VAT credits amounting to 1"4,136,795.37 and 1"1,323,549.64 on the ground that the scanned ORs and their amount breakdowns were unreadable. While it concedes that the scanned ORs submitted in compliance with CTA En Bane Resolution No. 8- 2tl Emphdsis supplil'J. 21 Exhihit""P-12," Dnrkl'l (CTA CdSl' No. 10~17), Volum<' I, p. ..123. Set' pdge no. ?-,7 of lh<:' AssdilPJ Decision.

DECISION CTA EB NOS. 2913 & 2916 (CT A Case' No. 10~17) Pagl' 9 of 1~ 201623 may have been blurred, it emphasizes that the original physical copies of it are clear, legible, and the very ones that were marked and admitted 2~ in evidence. This admission of evidence made it believe in good faith that all its exhibits were in order. Thus, rendering the subject disallowance unjust. We remain unconvinced. Mere admission of evidence does not guarantee its probative value. People v. Lastimosa25 has made a clear distinction between the concepts of admissibility and probative value: Admissibility of evidence should not be confounded with its probative value. The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence, while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade. The admissibility of a particular item of evidence has to do with whether it meets various tests by which its reliability is to be determined, so as to be considered with other evidence admitted in the case in arriving at a decision as to the truth.... Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all, while probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an issue. Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence.26 Here, while the physical copies of the ORs may have been admitted in evidence, the scanned copies submitted for the Court's appreciation were unreadable and failed to clearly establish the input VAT credits claimed. The Court, in the exercise of its judicial evaluation, is not bound to be convinced and persuaded by '' CT A En Bane Rl'solution No.S-2016 rl'ads: NOW THEREFORE the Court En Bane RESOLVES as il is lwrPbv RESOLVED, to ADOPT tlw prnpos~llhal tlw submission of pre-mc1rked rPceipls, ~1vnicQS, vourlwrs or olhl'r dotunwnls in PviJL'tKP bc in soft co piPs or scdmwd cnpiPs of tlw sanw savPd in PDF formal in a portahll' storJgt' dl�virP such JS nwmory cc1rds, CDs, DVDs or USBs and Lhdl il is tlw responsibility of Llw p,uty submitting tlw portdhil' stord~-~l' Jpvin� to PllSUf(' thJLLlw SdlllP is dl"CPSsihl(' by llw Court, subjt'rllo llw provisions or SPrlion 3(b), RulP 12 and St'rlion \ Ruh' 13 of Llw RPvisPd Rulps of llw Courl of Tax Appt�als on Llw dvdiJdbilily of llw migindl rPn'ipls, invoicPs, voudwrs or ollwr dorumPnts for vcrificdtion .1nd cmnp.1rison, if nN�pssdry. " ln J RPsolulion dJtc>d March ~0, 2022. " C.R. No. 263758, FehruJry 03, 2023. "" Emphasis supplit>d.

DECISION CTA EB NOS. 2915 & 291n (CTA Cas<' No. 10~17) Pag<' 10 of H evidence which it cannot properly examine or verify, regardless of its admission. Moreover, the burden of proof lies with the taxpayer-claimant to prove its entitlement to the refund. Commissioner Internal Revenue v. Filminera Resources Corporation (Filminera)27 is on point: We stress that the taxpayer-claimant has the burden of proving the legal and factual bases of its claim for tax credit or refund. After all, tax refunds partake the nature of exemption from taxation, and as such, must be looked upon with disfavor. .... The burden of proof rests upon the taxpayer to establish by sufficient and competent evidence its entitlement to a claim for refund.2s Consistent with Filminera, NYBP, as the taxpayer-claimant, bears the burden of submitting its evidence in a condition that allows the Court to verify and examine it with certainty. The mere admission of such evidence does not relieve NYBP of its responsibility to ensure that the documents submitted as evidence are complete, legible, and in proper order. Here, the scanned copies on which NYBP relies are blurred and unreadable; its evidentiary burden, therefore, remains unmet. As such, the Court in Division correctly disallowed the contested input VAT credits. Meanwhile, NYBP also contends that the Court in Division erred in disallowing input VAT amounting to f>221,710.64 for failure of the official receipts (ORs) to indicate the nature of the services rendered. It argues that the nature of the services can be reasonably inferred from the identity and business style of the suppliers reflected on the ORs, and that each OR cross-references billing statements or invoices detailing the corresponding services. We are not swayed. A creditable input tax should be evidenced by a VAT invoice or official receipt, which must comply with the requirements of the G.R. No. 231{\25, Seplemher 16, 2020. Emphasis supplied.

DECISION CTA EB NOS. 2915 & 2916 (CTA CJse No. 10~17) PJge 11 ofH NIRC as amended, and related revenue regulations.2Y Section 113(B) and Section 237 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended, mandate that a VAT-registered seller of services should issue an OR showing, among others, the description of the goods or properties, or the nature of the service, thus: SEC. 113. Invoicing and Accounting Requirements for VAT- registered Persons. - (B) Information Contained in the VAT Invoice or VAT Official Receipt. - The following information shall be indicated in the VAT invoice or VAT official receipt: (3) The date of h�ansaction, quantity, unit cost and description of the goods or properties or nature of the service; and co SECTION 237. Issuance of Receipts or Sales or Commercial/Invoices.- All persons subject to an internal revenue tax shall, for each sale or h�ansfer of merchandise or for services rendered valued at Twenty-five pesos (P25.00) or more, issue duly registered receipts or sales or commercial invoices, prepared at least in duplicate, showing the date of h�ansaction, quantity, unit cost and description of merchandise or nature of service: .. 11 Here, NYBP concedes that "the subject ORs did not indicate the nature of services that were covered by [its] payment." 32 NYBP's theory that the name of its supplier and service provider, or a cross-reference to billing statements, can cure this defect cannot prosper. The most competent evidence of input VAT remains the original VAT receipts and invoices themselves. As Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue1J instructs: other documents, "do not replace the pertinent invoices [and] receipts as competent evidence to prove the fact of refundable or creditable input VAT." " 5PP Comrnissioncr of Internal Revenue v. P!Iilex Mining Corporation, C.K No.. 230016, NovPmhPr 23, 2020 citing Western Mindanao Power Corp. v. Conmusswncr of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.181 136, )um� B. 2012. :'-(I Emphusb supplied. .<1 Em.phusis suppliPJ. '' PJr. ~1. Rollo (CT A EB No. 2916), p. 19. " G.R. No. 159-190, FL�hruJry 18, 2008.

DECISION cr A EB NOS. 2915 & 2911> (CT A Cast> No. 10-�17) P<~gl' 12 of 1-t The Court cannot rely on inferences or other documents to fill in details that the OR must inherently contain. To hold otherwise would defeat the very purpose of the invoicing requirements, which is to ensure an accurate audit trail and to guard against unsupported refund claims. Lastly, NYBP's invokes the general principle of VAT neutrality, which prescribes, among others the elimination of disproportionate compliance costs for business.'" For NYBP, input VAT must be allowed once the substantive requirements are met, even if some formal conditions were not observed, citing the ruling of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Bar/is 06 - Investimentos Imobiliarios e Turisticos SA v Autoridade Tributaria e Aduaneira'5, in light of the principle of VAT neutrality. The argument of NYBP is unavailing. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philex Mining Corporation, (Philex)'" emphasized that a taxpayer's entitlement to a VAT refund must be clearly granted by law, and that such entitlement is conditioned on strict compliance with all procedural and documentary requirements, including invoicing requirements, thus: In a claim for tax refund or tax credit, the applicant must prove not only entitlement to the grant of the claim under substantive law. It must also show satisfaction of all the documentary and evidentiary requirements for an administrative claim for a refund or tax credit. Hence, the mere fact that petitioner's application for zero-rating has been approved by the CIR does not, by itself, justify the grant of a refund or tax credit. The taxpayer claiming the refund must further comply with the invoicing and accounting requirements mandated by the NIRC, as well as by revenue regulations implementing them.37 VAT invoicing requirements are not optional; it is the sole means of determining the veracity of taxpayer's claims. 3 In Team H lnlerndlional VAT /CST GuidPlinPs of Llw Orgunizulion for Eronomir Co-opt'rdtion Jnd o,�wlopnwnl ("OECD"), p.20. CJSL� C-511>/1-t, St>pL,�mht>r 15, 2011>. G.R. No. 230016, NovPmlwr 25, 2020. EmphJsJS supplit>J. Nippon Express (Pl1iiippincs) CorporatiOn"� Co1nmissioncr of lntcmal Rcz�cniiC, G.R. No. 19H95, july 23,2018.

DECISION CTA EB NOS. 2915 & 2916 (CT A Case' No. 10~17) Pagc'nofH Energy Corporation v. Commissioner of Intemal Revenue (Team Energy)?~ the Supreme Court explained: Strict compliance with substantiation and invoicing requirements is necessary considering VAT's nature and VAT system's tax credit method, where tax payments are based on output and input taxes and where the seller's output tax becomes the buver's input tax that is available as tax credit or refund in the same transaction. It ensures the proper collection of taxes at all stages of distribution, facilitates computation of tax credits, and provides accurate audit trail or evidence for BIR monitoring purposes. Following Philex and Team Energy, the general principle of VAT neutrality cannot override the Philippines' domestic legislation, which requires strict invoice conditions for claiming input tax credits. It is not within the Court's power to relax statutory requirements on the basis of policy arguments and international guidelines, which do not have the force of law. While foreign precedent can be persuasive in appropriate cases, it cannot be applied to dilute an unequivocal requirement of the law. The form and content of VAT invoicesjORs are substantive requirements in the Philippine VAT system, not mere formal conditions. In precis, the Court in Division correctly disallowed NYBP's input VAT on account of unreadable OR OR amount breakdown, and failure to indicate the nature of supplier's service in the amounts of P4,136,795.37, T'1,323,549.64, and T'221,710.64, respectively. So it must stand. WHEREFORE, the Petitions for Review, filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in CTA EB No. 2915, and by New York Bay Philippines, Inc. in CTA EB No. 2916, are DENIED. The Decision dated October 4, 2023, and Resolution dated April19, 2024, in CTA Case No. 10417, are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ~ ~ f ~ -fa;t:i-t~ MARIAN IV(/ F. REYif'S-FAJARDO Associate justice :;o G.R. No. 197663, March 1-l, 2018.

DECISION CTA EB NOS. 2915 & 2916 (CTA C1s<' No. 10-!17) Pclg<' H of 1-! ___ WE CONCUR: , ~. ~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice c~�-~ CATHERINlT. MANAHAN Associate Justice '-.. JEANMA ,:;~--.; LEAVE MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO Associate Justice ,:;~; LEA'JE LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice ,:;~~ LEA'IE HENRYS. ANGELES Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. ~. ~..... ,..._ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Acting Presiding justice