TOLEDO POWER COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (Consolidated with Case No. 7294)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION TOLEDOPOWERCOMPAN~ CTA Case Nos. 7233 & 7294 Petitione~ (CTA EB No. 708) -versus- Members: BAUTISTA, and CASANOVA. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated: REVENUE, ; 'JUL 12 2018~ (i ;Jg Respondent. ~ .:;J (>""' x----------------------------------------------------------- --- ~------ ------x AMENDED DECISION This is an Amended Decision rendered only in CTA Case No. 7233 pursuant to the Decision1 of the Special First Division of Supreme Court in the case of "Toledo Power Company vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue", docketed as G.R. No. 199645, promulgated on August 10, 2015, to wit: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition in G.R. No. 195175 is DENIED, while the Petition in G.R. No. 199645 is PARTLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the case in G.R. No. 199645 is hereby REMANDED to the Court of Tax Appeals insofar as the Petition in C.T.A. Case No. 7233, for the purpose of the computation of the refundable input VAT attributable to the zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales of Toledo Power Corporation for the first quarter of 2003. SO ORDERED." The above-captioned consolidated cases involve the claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate ("TCC") of Toledo Power Company ("TPC") against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR"). p./ 1En Bane Rollo (CTA EB No. 589), pp. 162- 170.

Amended Decision CTA Case Nos. 7233 and 7294 (CTA EB No.708) In CTA Case No. 7233, the amount prayed for refund or issuance ofTCC is P3,907,783.80, representing TPC's unutilized input VAT for the first quarter of 2003.2 In CTA Case No. 7294, the amount prayed for refund or issuance ofTCC is P2,124,847.14, representing TPC's unutilized input VAT for the second quarter of 2003.3 The facts of the above-captioned cases, as narrated in this Court's Decision4 dated December 15, 2009 remain undisputed. On April 22, 2005, TPC filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals ("CTA"), docketed as CTA Case No. 7233, praying for the refund or issuance of TCC in the amount of P3,907,783.80, representing its unutilized input VAT from domestic purchase of taxable goods and services, and the importation of goods attributable to zero-rated sales for the first quarter of 2003.5 Another Petition was filed byTPC before the CTA on July 22,2005, docketed as CTA Case No. 7294, praying for the refund or issuance of TCC of the alleged unutilized input VAT for the second quarter of 2003 in the total amount ofP2,124,847.14.6 In a Resolution promulgated on September 22, 2005, the CTA Special First Division consolidated CTA Case No. 7294 with CTA Case No. 7233.7 On December 15, 2009, the CTA Special First Division partially granteds the refund, but in the reduced amount of P185,395.11. Upon Motion for Partial Reconsideration of both parties, this Court, citing the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. 9 rendered an Amended Decisionlo o~ 2 Par. 2, August 10, 2015 Decision ofthe Supreme Court, En Bane Rollo (CTA EB No. 589), p. 164 3 Par. 3, Ibid. 4 Annex "B" to the Petition for Review, CTA EB No. 708 (CTA Case Nos. 7233 and 7294), En Bane Rollo, pp. 842-847. 5 Par. 2, Ibid. 6 Par. 3, Id. 7 Last par., December 15, 2009 Decision of CTA First Special Division, Annex "B" to the Petition for Review, En Bane Rollo (CTA EB No. 708), pp. 845-846. 8 Decision, Annex "B" to the Petition for Review, En Bane Rollo (CTA EB No. 708), pp. 842-862. 9 G.R. No. 184823, October 6, 2010. 10 Annex "A" to the Petition for Review, En Bane Rollo (CTA EB No. 708), pp. 823-831.

Amended Decision CTA Case Nos. 7233 and 7294 (CTA EB No. 708) December 1, 2010, reversing and setting aside its December 15, 2009 Decision, to wit: "WHEREFORE, respondent's (CIR) Motion for Partial Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED; while petitioner's (TPC) Motion for Partial Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. This Court's Decision promulgated on December 15, 2009 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner's claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate for its unutilized input VAT for the first quarter of taxable year 2003 filed on April 22, 2005 and docketed as CTA Case No. 7233, is hereby DISMISSED for being prematurely filed. Likewise, petitioner's claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate for its unutilized input VAT for the second quarter of taxable year 2003 filed on July 22, 2005 and docketed as CTA Case No. 7294 is hereby DISMISSED for having been filed beyond the period provided by law. SO ORDERED." Within the extended time granted11, TPC appealed12 the assailed Amended Decision with the CTA En Bane on January 7, 2011, which was docketed as CTA EB No. 708. The said Petition was, however, denied by the CTA En Bane in its Decision13 promulgated on July 7, 2011. Undaunted, TPC filed a Motion for Reconsideration14 on August 9, 2011, which was denied by the CTA Court En Bane in a Resolution15 dated December 7, 2011. On January 27, 2012, TPC filed its Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. 199645. In a Resolution promulgated on March 7, 2012, the Second Division of the Supreme Court consolidated G.R. No. 199645 (Toledo Power Company vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) with G.R. No. 195175 (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Toledo Power Company)..:, 11 Minute Resolution dated December 28, 2010, En Bane Rollo (CTA EB No. 708), p. 776. 12 En Bane Rollo (CTA EB No. 708), p. 777-822. 13 En Bane Rollo (CTA EB No. 708), pp. 162-176. 14 En Bane Rollo (CTA EB No. 708), pp. 194-223. 15 En Bane Rollo (CTA EB No. 708), pp. 236-238.

Amended Decision CTA Case Nos. 7233 and 7294 (CTA EB No. 708) Page 4 ofl4 in order to avoid conflicting decisions on related cases and to save the time and resources of the Court.16 On August 10, 2015, the Special First Division of Supreme Court, citing the consolidated cases of Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. San Roque Power Corporation, Taganito Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and Phi/ex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue17, rendered a Decision denying the Petition in G.R. No. 195175 and partially granting the Petition in G.R. No. 199645. Pertinent portions of the said Decision are hereunder quoted for ready reference: "In sum, the CTA has jurisdiction over the Petition of TPC, but only in C.T.A. Case No. 7233 or the claim for refund of unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales for the first quarter of 2003. However, considering that the original Decision of the CTA First Division did not separate the computation of the refundable amount of input VAT for the first and the second quarters of 2003, we cannot determine the actual amount that may be attributed to the first quarter of 2003. Thus, a remand of the case to the CTA is necessary. The Court finds, in view of the absence of jurisdiction of the Court of the Tax Appeals over the judicial claims of TPC in C.T.A. Case Nos. 7471 and 7294, that there is no need to discuss the other issues raised. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition in G.R. No. 195175 is DENIED, while the Petition in G.R. No. 199645 is PARTLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the case in G.R. No. 199645 is hereby REMANDED to the Court of Tax Appeals insofar as the Petition in C.T.A. Case No. 7233, for the purpose of the computation of the refundable input VAT attributable to the zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales of Toledo Power Corporation for the first quarter of 2003. SO ORDERED." Thereafter, CIR filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration andjor Clarification (ofthe Decision dated August 10, 2015) in G.R. No. 195175P- 16 As per Notice of Resolution dated March 7, 2012. 17 G.R. Nos. 187485, 196113 and 197156, February 12,2013.

Amended Decision CTA Case Nos. 7233 and 7294 (CTA EB No.708) and Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated August 10, 2015) in G.R. No. 199645. TPC, on the other hand, filed a Motion for Clarification (of the Decision dated 10 August 2015) in G.R. No. 195175 and Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 10 August 2015) in G.R. No. 199645. The foregoing Motions were all resolved by the Special First Division of Supreme Court in a Resolution promulgated on July 20, 2016 in this wise: 11This Court finds no substantial argument that would merit the reversal of our Decision in G.R. No. 199645. WHEREFORE, premises considered, this court 1) GRANTS the prayer for clarification in the Motion for Partial Reconsideration and/or Clarification (of the Decision dated August 10, 2015) filed by the CIR in G.R. No. 195175; 2) GRANTS the Motion for Clarification (of the Decision dated 10 August 2015) filed by the TPC in G.R. No. 195175; and 3) DENIES both the Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated August 10, 2015) filed by the CIR and the Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 10 August 2015) filed by the TPC in G.R. No. 199645. SO ORDERED." On October 10, 2016, the August 10, 2015 Decision of the Special First Division of the Supreme Court became final and executory.lB In view of the Entry of Judgment issued by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 195175 and G.R. No. 199645, a Resolution dated April 2, 2018 was issued by the CTA En Bane remanding to the CTA Special First Division CTA Case No. 7233 for the purpose of computing TPCs.., 18 Per Entry of Judgement dated October 10,2016.

Amended Decision CTA Case Nos. 7233 and 7294 (CTA EB No. 708) refundable input VAT attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales for the first quarter of 2003. Hence, this Amended Decision. Pertinent to the resolution of the issue at hand is the provision of Section 112(A) ofthe NIRC of1997, as amended, which provides: "SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits ofInput Tax.- (A) Zero-rated or Effectively Zero-rated Sales. - Any VAT-registered person, whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated may, within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made, apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax due or paid attributable to such sales, except transitional input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against output tax: Provided, however, That in the case of zero-rated sales under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(1), (2) and (B) and Section 108(B)(1) and (2), the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds thereof had been duly accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP): Provided, further, That where the taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sale and also in taxable or exempt sale of goods or properties or services, and the amount of creditable input tax due or paid cannot be directly and entirely attributed to any one of the transactions, it shall be allocated proportionately on the basis of the volume of sales." Based thereon, in order to be entitled to a refund or tax credit of unutilized input tax, petitioner must prove the following: 1. that there must be zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales; 2. that input taxes were incurred or paid; 3. that such input taxes are attributable to zero-rated sales or effectively zero-rated sales; 4. that the input taxes were not applied against any output VAT liability; and .II'

Amended Decision CTA Case Nos. 7233 and 7294 (CTA EB No. 708) 5. that the claim for refund was filed within the two-year prescriptive period. It is clear that effective June 26, 2001, the sale of generated power by generation companies shall be VAT zero-rated by virtue of Section 619 of the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 ("EPIRA Law"). In relation thereto, Section 4(x) of the EPIRA Law defines a Generation Company as any person or entity authorized by the Energy Regulatory Commission ("ERC") to operate facilities used in the generation of electricity. Thus, to be entitled to a refund or credit of unutilized input VAT attributable to the sale of electricity under the EPIRA Law, a taxpayer must establish: (i) that it is a generation company and, (ii) that it derived sales from power generation.20 Further, for an entity to be considered a generation company, it should be authorized by the ERC to operate the generation facility. Specifically, both new and existing generation facilities are required to secure a Certificate of Compliance ("COC") from the ERC before it can operate the facilities used for generation of electricity, as provided under Rule 5, Section 4 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9136, to wit: "SECTION 4. Obligations of a Generation Company. - (a) A COC shall be secured from the ERC before commercial operation of a new Generation Facility. The COC shall stipulate all obligations of a Generation Company consistent with this Section and such other operating guidelines as ERC may establish. The ERC shall establish and publish the standards and requirements for issuance of a COC. A COC shall be issued upon compliance with such standards and requirements..& 19 SECTION 6. Generation Sector. -Generation of electric power, a business affected with public interest, shall be competitive and open. XXX XXX XXX Pursuant to the objective of lowering electricity rates to end-users, sales of generated power by generation companies shall be value added tax zero-rated. XXX XXX XXX (Repealed by Section 24 of Republic Act No. 9337) 2�Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Toledo Power Co., G.R. Nos. 196415 and 196451, December 2, 2015.

Amended Decision CTA Case Nos. 7233 and 7294 (CTA EB No.708) (i) A Person owning an existing Generation Facility or a Generation Facility under construction, shall submit within ninety (90) days from effectivity of these Rules to ERC, when applicable, a certificate of DOE/NPC accreditation, a three (3) year operational history, a general company profile and other information that ERC may require. Upon making a complete submission to the ERC, such Person shall be issued a COC by the ERC to operate such existing Generation Facility." To recall, in the December 15, 2009 Decision of the CTA Special First Division, the Court found that TPC failed to submit the approved COC; and, that only the Letter for the Submission of Documents to the ERC for the Issuance of COC dated June 20, 2002 was presented by TPC which merely proved that it filed an application with the ERC for the issuance of coc.z1 The CTA Special First Division further noted that the ERC Registration and Compliance attached to TPC's Application for VAT Refund or Issuance of TCC dated December 20, 2004 was not made part of the record nor offered to the Court.zz Thus, out of the reported zero-rated sales of P132,824,216.20 for the first quarter of taxable year 2003, PTC's sales of generated power to the following companies, by virtue of the EPIRA Law, shall be denied VAT zero-rating: Exhibit Invoice/ Date Sold to Amount O.R.No. 2/3/2003 p 13,567,687.60 NN-3 3/5/2003 CEBECO III 1443 12/4/2002 8,517,748.84 00-2 462 3/5/2003 Visayan Electric Company 13,843,696.34 1417 13,081,237.94 - 1454 CEBECO III _P 49,010,370.72 - CEBECO III Total -- On the other hand, TPC's sale of power generation services to National Power Corporation ("NPC") qualifies for zero-rating under Section 108 (8)(3)23 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended since NPC is an ,e. 21 Par. 2, December 15,2009, Annex "B" to the Petition for Review, En Bane Rollo (CTA EB No. 708), pp. 852. 22 Par. 3, December 15,2009, Annex "B" to the Petition for Review, Ibid. 23 "Section 108. Value-Added Tax on Sale of Services and Use or Lease of Properties.- XXX XXX XXX

Amended Decision CTA Case Nos. 7233 and 7294 (CTA EB No.708) entity enjoying exemption from payment of all taxes pursuant to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 639524, which provides: "Sec. 13. Non-profit Character of the Corporation; Exemption from all Taxes, Duties, Fees, Imposts and other Charges by Government and Governmental Instrumentalities. The Corporation shall be non-profit and shall devote all its returns from its capital investment, as well as excess revenues from its operation, for expansion. To enable the Corporation to pay its indebtedness and obligations and in furtherance and effective implementation of the policy enunciated in Section one of this Act, the Corporation is hereby declared exempt: (a) From the payment of all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, charges, costs and service fees in any court or administrative proceedings in which it may be a party, restrictions and duties to the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities, municipalities and other government agencies and instrumentalities; (b) From all income taxes, franchise taxes and realty taxes to be paid to the National Government, its provinces, cities, municipalities and other government agencies and instrumentalities; (c) From all import duties, compensating taxes and advanced sales tax, and wharfage fees on import of foreign goods required for its operations and projects; and (d) From all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, and all other charges imposed by the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities, municipalities and other government agencies and instrumentalities, on all~ (B) Transactions Subject to Zero Percent (0%) Rate- The following services performed in the Philippines by VAT-registered persons shall be subject to zero percent (0%) rate. XXX XXX XXX (3) Services rendered to persons or entities whose exemption under special laws or international agreements to which the Philippines is a signatory effectively subjects the supply of such services to zero percent (0%) rate; ..." 24 An Act Revising the Charter of the National Power Corporation.

Amended Decision CTA Case Nos. 7233 and 7294 (CTA EB No. 708) petroleum products used by the Corporation in the generation, transmission, utilization, and sale of electric power." Moreover, no less than the Supreme Court has ruled in the case of CBK Power Company Limited vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue25 that NPC is exempt from payment of VAT and that the services rendered thereto by a VAT-registered entity are effectively zero-rated, viz.: "Petitioner's sales to NPC are effectively zero-rated. As aptly ruled by the CTA Special Second Division, petitioner's sales to NPC are effectively subject to zero percent (Oo/o) VAT. The NPC is an entity with a special charter, which categorically exempts it from the payment of any tax, whether direct or indirect, including VAT. Thus, services rendered to NPC by a VAT-registered entity are effectively zero-rated. In fact, the BIR itself approved the application for zero-rating on 29 December 2004, filed by petitioner for its sales to NPC covering January to October 2005. As a consequence, petitioner claims for the refund of the alleged excess input tax attributable to its effectively zero-rated sales to NPC." (Emphasis supplied) Since NPC is exempt from the payment of all taxes, including VAT, TPC should therefore be allowed to claim a refund or credit of its unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales of electricity to NPC. However, upon review of the records, the sales of P56,034,845.48 to NPC shall be denied VAT zero-rating for the following reasons: Exhibit O.R.No. I Sold to I Amount 1) Supported by an undated official receipt NN-2 1438 I NPC I p 28,695,523.97 2) Without supporting official receipt SS, Annex C-4 - I NPC I 27,339,321.51 I Total -- I p 56,034,845.48 Thus, only the remaining sales of P27,779,000.0026, duly covered by official receipt, qualify for VAT zero-rating.....-� 25 G.R. Nos. 198729-30, January 15,2014. 26 Exhibit "NN-1".

Amended Decision CTA Case Nos. 7233 and 7294 (CTA EB No.708) Page 11 of14 Having resolved that TPC had valid zero-rated sales of P27,779,000.00 for the first quarter of 2003, the Court shall now determine the amount of unutilized excess input VAT attributable thereto. Records show that for the first quarter of 2003, TPC had a reported input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales in the amount of P3,963,690.00. To substantiate the existence of such input VAT, TPC offered various suppliers' invoices, official receipts, Bureau of Customs (BOC) Import Entries and Internal Revenue Declarations (IEIRDs), BOC and bank official receipts,27 which were duly examined by the Court- commissioned ICPA, Mr. Emmanuel Y. Mendoza. Based on the Report submitted by the ICPA,2S the following input VAT in the amount of P1,416,094.99 should be disallowed for the grounds stated below: ICPA Findings Exhibit "SS" Disallowed Input VAT 1 Input VAT on domestic purchases of services p 30,724.20 supported by documents other than ORs AnnexA-3 7,785.27 2 Input VAT on domestic purchases of goods 33,447.51 1,400.00 supported by documents other than invoices. AnnexA-4 340,762.67 3 Input VAT on domestic purchases of goods 816,802.84 supported by invoices with no BIR permit 19,709.27 13,909.84 number on the authority to print AnnexA-5 151,018.39 4 Input VAT on domestic purchases of services 535.00 supported by ORs with pre-printed "TIN" only AnnexA-6 ~ 5 Input VAT on domestic purchases of services supported by ORs dated before the taxable year of claim AnnexA-7 6 Input VAT on domestic purchases of goods supported by invoices dated before the taxable year of claim AnnexA-8 7 Input VAT on domestic purchases of services supported by photocopied ORs AnnexA-9 8 Input VAT on domestic purchases of goods supported by photocopied invoices Annex -10 9 Input VAT on domestic purchases of goods/services with no available supporting documents AnnexA-11 10 Input VAT on Importation of goods with no available supporting documents AnnexA-15 27 Exhibits "HH-1" to "HH-794", as summarized in Exhibit "SS", Annexes A-1 to A-15. 28 Exhibit "SS".

Amended Decision I P 1,416,094.99 CTA Case Nos. 7233 and 7294 (CTA EB No.708) I TOTAL Upon further verification, the input VAT claim should be further decreased by P581,251.91 due to the following reasons: Exhibit Findings No. Input VAT Total 1 Input VAT on domestic purchases of goods/services supported by "TIN V" Invoice/ORs HH-76 p 24,243.64 Stitches & Wear Industries Liang Chi Industry Phils. Inc. HH-174 8,480.91 Mic's Parts Supply HH-181 3,990.91 Philippine Packings & Seals Corp. HH-189 164.50 p 36,879.96 2 Input VAT on domestic purchases of services/goods supported by ORs/invoices issued not in the name of the petitioner Globe Telecom HH-31 4,585.16 Globe Telecom HH-32 4,585.16 Globe Telecom HH-34 4,600.00 Traders Hotel Manila HH-81 577.27 United Bearing Industrial Corp. HH-214 396.36 14,743.95 3 Input VAT on importation of goods supported by ORs issued by BOC but dated outside the period of claim OR No.98131792 HH-779 5,545.00 OR No.98143911 HH-780 11,081.00 OR No.96765121 HH-769 10,872.00 OR No.98164981 HH-770 9,440.00 OR No.98150385 HH-771 28,047.00 OR No.98122753 HH-772 195,081.00 SN No.37288386 HH-773 62,339.00 SN No.37288422 HH-775 91,292.00 SN No.37288377 HH-776 76,551.00 SN No.37288431 HH-777 39,380.00 529,628.00 TOTAL p 581,251.91 Thus, TPC was able to support, by proper VAT invoices and/or official receipts, the input taxes in the amount of P1,966,343.20, computed as follows: Input VAT for the 1st Quarter p 1,416,094.99 p 3,963,690.10 Less: Disallowances 581,251.91 1,997,346.90 Per CPA Findings p 1,966,343.20 Per this Court's Findings Substantiated Input VAT However, a portion of the substantiated input VAT shall be applied against the reported output VAT liability of P55,906.30. Hence, only the remaining input VAT of P1,910,436.90 can be attributed to the,-

Amended Decision CTA Case Nos. 7233 and 7294 (CTA EB No. 708) entire zero-rated sales declared by TPC in the amount of P132,824,216.20; and, only the input VAT ofP399,550.84 is attributable to the valid zero-rated sales ofP27,779,000.00, as computed below: Substantiated Input VAT p 1,966,343.20 Less: Output VAT 55,906.30 Excess Input VAT p 1,910,436.90 Excess Input VAT Divided by Total Reported Zero-rated Sales p 1,910,436.90 Multiply by Valid Zero-rated Sales p 132,824,216.20 Input VAT attributable to Valid Zero-rated Sales p 27,779,000.00 p 399,550.84 As evidenced by its Quarterly VAT Returns29 from the 3rd quarter of 2003 to 4th quarter of 2005, TPC was able to prove that the input VAT of P399,550.84 was not applied against any output VAT in the succeeding quarters. Thus, the Court finds TPC entitled to a refundable input VAT amounting to P399,550.84, covering the first quarter of taxable year 2003 under CTA Case No. 7233. WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the Petition for Review filed by Toledo Power Company vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue in CTA Case No. 7233 is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby ORDERED TO REFUND or TO ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of Toledo Power Company in the amount of THREE HUNDRED NINETY-NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS AND EIGHTY-FOUR CENTAVOS (P399,550.84), representing its unutilized input VAT first quarter of taxable year 2003. SO ORDERED. ~ I CONCUR: CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice LOVEL~. BAUTISTA Associate Justice 29 Exhibits "D" to "0".

Amended Decision CTA Case Nos. 7233 and 7294 (CTA EB No.708) ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Amended Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. LOVELL ~BAUTISTA Associate Justice Acting Chairperson, Special First Division CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Amended Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. Presiding Justice