COUNTRY BANK, RURAL BANK OF BONGABONG, INC. v. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COUNTRY BANK, RURAL BANK CTA EB NO. 2760 OF BONGABONG, INC., (CTA Case No. 10864) Petitio ner, P resent: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J, BUREAU OF INTERNAL RINGPIS-LIBAN, REVENUE, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, Respo nd en t. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, Jl. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - X DECISION RINGPIS-LIBAN, ]:.: The Case Before the Court is a Petition for Review seeking to reverse the Resolutions dated January 31, 20231 and i\!Iay OS, 20232 of the Court of Tax Appeals Second Divisio n ("Second Division"), granting respondent's "i\llotion for Early Resolution of the I ssue o f Jurisdiction of the H o norable Court" flied on October 21, 2022 and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction the original "Petition for Review" filed on 1\llay 23, 2022 before the court a quo. ~ Issued by Associate Justices Erlinda P. Uy, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-villena and Lanee S. Cu i- David; Docket, pp. 349-364. 2 !d. , pp. 382-390.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2760 (CTA Case No. 10864) The Parties Petitioner is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippinco with office addrcoo at Poblacion, Bongabong, Oriental ,\Iindoro, represented by Melvin H. ,-\linio, its Chief Operating Officer and Bank i\Ianager. 1 Respondent is the Bureau of Internal Revenue ("BIR") represented by Regional Director ("RD") Florantc R. Aninag of Revenue Region 9c\, CaBAMiRo, Sto. Tomas, Batangas, duly appointed to exercise the powers and perform the duties of his office including, inter alia, the power to decide disputed assessments or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code ("NIRC:") of 1997, as amended. He holds office at BIR Revenue Region 9A, CaB"-\l\IiRo, Sto. Tomas, Batangas 4 The Facts On I'ebruary 09, 2021, Respondent issued a Preliminary Assessment Notice ("PAN") with Details of Discrepancies shO\ving Petitioner's liability for deficiency income tax, expanded withholding tax, withholding tax on compensation, documentary stamp tax, and compromise penalty in the total amount of Php5,226,763.31.' Thereafter, on March 18, 2021, Respondent issued a Formal Letter of Demand ("FLD") demanding payment of deficiency taxes, including penalties and interests, for the taxable year 2018 in the total amount ofPhp5,309,330.67.6 Allegedly, Petitioner "officially" received the FLD on April 14, 2021 7 While according to Respondent, the FLD was received by Petitioner through its Branch Head on l\Iarch 29, 2021.8 On May 14, 2021, Petitioner filed its protest to the FLD, addressed to RD Florante R. c\ninag." On June 28, 2021, Respondent issued a Letter denying Petitioner's protest to the FLD fur being allegedly filed out of time.;;_, 3 Id., Petition for Review, par. 2.1, pp. 7-8. 4 Jd., Petition for Review, par. 2.2, p. 8. Id., Petition for Review, par. 4.7 and Annexes "J" & "K", pp. 10 and 44-48. 6 Id., Petition for Review, par. 4.9 and Annex "L", pp. 10 and 49-64. 7 Jd., Petition for Review, par. 4.11, p. 11. 8 Id., Motion for Early Resolution of the Issue of Jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, par. 10, p. 314. 9 I d., Petition for Review, par. 4.12 and Annex "M", pp. 11 and 65-66. 10 See Docket, Petition for Review, Annex "P", pp. 71-72.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2760 (CTA Case No. 10864) Later, on July 28, 2021, \Varrants of Garnishment were issued against Petitioner's bank accounts in Banco De Oro ("BDO") and Development Bank of the Philippines ("DBP") 11 Petitioner was informed of the said \Varrants of Garnishment by BDO and DBP on August 13, 2021 and .-\ugust 16, 2021, respectively. 12 On c\ugust 23, 2021, Petitioner wrote a Letter to RD Florante R. Aninag in response to the June 28, 2021 Letter. 13 While on c\ugust 31, 2021, counsel for Petitioner wrote another Letter addressed to ~-\tty. Emelita R. c\bo, Revenue District Officer of Revenue District Office No. 63, requesting for the lifting of the Warrants of Garnishment.'" On October 22, 2021, Respondent, through RD Florante R. c\ninag, issued a Letter in relation to Petitioner's _\ugust 23, 2021 and .�\ugust 31, 2021 Letters." On November 26, 2021, Petitioner wrote another Letter to RD Florante R. ,\ninag for the lifting of the \'(/arrants of Garnishment in response to Respondent's October 22, 2021 Letter. 16 On J\Iarch 18, 2022, counsel for Petitioner filed an Affidavit-Complaint before the Presidential c-\nti-Corruption Commission praying for the removal from service of the involved BIR officcrs. 17 On ,\pril 21, 2022, Petitioner received a Letter dated April 04, 2022, signed by RD Florante R. ~\ninag, denying its request for lifting of the Warrants of Garnishment. 18 The Proceedings in the Second Division On May 23, 2022, Petitioner filed a "Petition for Review" with the court a quo 111 lts bid to reverse and set aside Respondent's Letter dated A.pril 04, 2022. 19 On May 30, 2022, summons was issued against Rcsponr.lcnt/ 11 Docket, pp. 68 and 70. 12 Id., Petition for Review, Annexes "N" and "0", pp. 67 and 69. 13 Id., Petition for Review, par. 4.14 and Annex "P", pp. 11 and 71-72. 14 Id., Petition for Review, par. 4.16 and Annex "Q", pp. 11 and 73-74. 15 Id., Petition for Review, par. 4.20 and Annex "T", pp. 12 and 131. 16 Id., Petition for Review, Annex "U", pp. 132-133. " Id., Petition for Review, Annex "5", pp. 78-85. 18 Jd., Petition for Review, par. 4.23 and Annex "B", pp. 12 and 26-27. 19 Id., pp. 7-22. 20 Id., p. 134.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2760 (CTA Case No. 10864) On July 01, 2022, Respondent flied a "1\Iotion for Extension of Time to File Answer""', which the court a quo granted in an Order dated July 05, 2022."" On c\ugust 01, 2022, Respondent flied its ""\nswer""1 11ia registered mail. On August 05, 2022, Respondent filed a "1\Iotion to Defer Transmittal of BIR Records""", which was granted in an Order"5 dated ,\ugust 16, 2022. On~ \ugust 17, 2022, a Notice of Pre-Trial Conference"'' was issued. On July 01, 2022, Respondent filed a "Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer""', which the court a q11o granted in an Order"8 dated July 05, 2022. On October 21, 2022, Petitioner flied the following: Pre-Trial l3ricf'9, Judicial "\ffidavit of Elberne B. Nuevo3", Judicial c\ffidavit of Juliepher R. Bolor31 , and Judicial ,-\ffidavit of :\!elvin H. "\linio12. On October 21, 2022, Respondent filed a "1\Iotion for Early Resolution of the Issue ofJurisdiction of the Honorable Court"33 On October 24, 2022, Respondent also filed his "Pre-Trial Brief Ad Caute!am"�q On November 04, 2022, Petitioner filed its "Comment/Opposition [to Respondent's TVIotion for Early Resolution of the Issue of Jurisdiction of the Honorable Court dated October 20, 20221"". On January 31, 2023, the Second Division promulgated the ftrst Assailed Resolution, the dispositive portion of which reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent's ____1_\I_ot_io_n _fo_r _E_ar_lv�_Resolution of the Issue of Jurisdiction of the ~ 21 !d., pp. 136-140. 22 !d., p. 141. 23 !d., pp. 149-160. 24 !d., pp. 143-146. 25 !d., p. 148. 26 Id., pp. 161-162. 27 !d., pp. 136-140. 28 !d., p. 141. 29 !d., pp. 163-175. 30 !d., pp. 286-291. 31 !d., pp. 292-297. 32 Id., pp. 295-310. 33 !d., pp. 311-322. 34 !d., pp. 327-332. 35 !d., pp. 339-347.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2760 (CTA Case No. 10864) Honorable Court is GRANTED. 1\ccordingly, the instant Petition for Review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED."3r' 1\ggrieved, Petitioner filed a "l\Iotion for Reconsideration"3' on February 17, 2023, with Respondent's "Comment (on Petitioner's l\Iotion for Reconsideration)" filed on :\larch 20, 2023, which the Second Division denied in the Second Assailed Resolution, to wit: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Aiotio11 for Recomidemtion is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED."38 The Proceedings in the Court of Tax Appeals En Bane On May 29, 2023, Petitioner ftled via registered mail a "l\Iotion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review"39, which was t,>ranted in a Minute Resolution'" dated June 07, 2023. On June 14, 2023, Petitioner filed the present "Petition for R e v iew"' 1 � On July 04, 2023, a l\Iinute Resolution'' was issued directing Petitioner to subnllt vvithin five (5) days frotn notice, the Secretary's Certificate and certified true copies of the Assailed Resolutions dated January 31, 2023 and I\Iav 05, 2023. On July 18, 2023, Petitioner filed a "Submission" 43 On July 28, 2023, the Court issued a l\Iinute Resolution'' noting Petitioner's "Submission" and directing Respondent to comment on the "Petition for Review" \vithin ten (1 0) days from no t i c / 36 Id., Resolution dated January 31, 2023, p. 358. 37 !d., pp. 359-364. 38 Id., Resolution dated May 05, 2023, p. 389. 39 Rollo, pp. 1-7. Record shows that Petitioner received the May 05, 2023 Resolution on May 15, 2023; Docket, p. 381. 40 !d., p. 17. " Id., pp. 18-33. 42 !d., p. 34. 43 !d., pp. 35-37. 44 !d., p. 60.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2760 (CTA Case No. 10864) On "\ugust 16, 2023, R~spond~nt filed his "Comment (Petition for Review)""5 ("Comm~nt"). The Court then issued a J'viinute Resolution46 on September 04, 2023, submitting the instant case for decision. Assignment of Error Petitioner raises a single ground in support of its petition - "whether the Court in Division erred in dismissing the petitioner's Petition for Review under Section 7(a)(1) of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended by R./\. No. 9282 of the decision of the CIR or its duly authorized representative for the reason that it is time-barred""7 . The Arguments of Parties First, Petitioner posits that the BIR's power to distraint and/ or levy properties must yield to the taxpayer's constitutional right not to be deprived of property without due process. Petitioner also points out that forth~ Court to declare as time-barred the taxpayer's petition \vithout considering the peculiarity of the circumstances at bar is to give reward to Respondent's unlawful acts of graft and corruption. "\dditionalh�, Petitioner contends that it was left in the dark as to which action of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR") was appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals ("CL\"). Lastly, Petitioner avers that Respondent's Letter dated c\pril 04, 2022 that declared with finality the decision denying the lifting of the \'Varrants of Garnishment is the one that is considered the CIIrs appealable decision. On the other hand, Respondent in his Comment maintains that the assessments issued against Petitioner is already final, demandable and immediately executory for Petitioner failed to appeal/protest within the period provided by the statute..-\s such, the assessments are no longer appealable before the erA. Respondent further submits that even assuming that the protest to the FLD was filed within the period allowed by law, the petition must be dismissed for it was filed out of time before the CTA. Respondent stresses that despite /""' 45 Id., pp. 61-71. 46 Id., p. 72. 47 Id., Petition for Review, The Issue, p. 23.

DECISION erA EB No. 2760 (erA Case No. 10864) several denials through letters made by the BIR, Petitioner disregarded the same and only opted to file a petition from receipt of the c\pril 04, 2022 Letter. The Ruling of the Court Timeh"ness ofPetition The Court in Division issued the Assailed Resolution, denying Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" on 1\Iay 05, 2023. Petitioner received said Resolution on May 15, 2023.48 Pursuant to Rule 4, Section 2(a)(1) 49 in relation to Rule 8, Section 3(b)"' of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax "\ppeals51 (RRCL-\), Petitioner had fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the resolution or until t\Iay 30, 2023 within which to file its petition for review. On t\Iay 29, 2023, Petitioner ftled IJta registered mail a "t\Iotion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review" 51, praying for an extension of fifteen (15) days or until June 14, 2023 within which to file the petition. The same was granted in a 1\[inute Resolution5-1 dated June 07, 2023. On June 14, 2023, Petitioner timely filed the present "Petition for Review". Hence, the Court En Bane validly acquired Jurisdiction over the case. \'</e now proceed to the merits of the case/ 48 !d., p. 381. 49 Sec. 2. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court en bane. - The Court en bane shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: (a) Decisions or resolutions on motions for reconsideration or new trial of the Court in Divisions in the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over: XXX XXX XXX (1) Cases arising from administrative agencies - Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Customs, Department of Finance, Department of Trade and Industry, Department of Agriculture; x x x 50 Sec. 3. Who may appeal; period to file petition. - x x x (b) A party adversely affected by a decision or resolution of a Division of the Court on a motion for reconsideration or new trial may appeal to the Court by filing before it a petition for review within fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the questioned decision or resolution. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period herein fixed, the Court may grant an additional period not exceeding fifteen days from the expiration of the original period within which to file the petition for review. (Rules of Court, Rule 42, sec. la) 51 A.M. No. 05-11-07-erA, November 22, 2005. 52 Rollo, pp. 1-7. 53 !d., p. 17.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2760 (CTA Case No. 10864) "'l.t the outset, Petitioner presents no new argument to persuade Us that 1t has a meritorious case. In fact, the arguments in the instant Petition for Review are the same contentions in Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" filed with the court a q11o on February 17, 2023. These arguments had been fully and exhaustively resolved by the Court in Division in the ,\ssailed Resolutions dated January 31, 2023 and May 05, 2023. Be that as it may, and if only to put Petitioner's mind to rest and for purposes of emphasis, the Court En Banr \vill discuss them anew. The Court m Division correctly dismissed the case for lack ofjurisdiction The issue on jurisdiction is not novel. Basic is the rule that before any court decides a case on its merits, it must first make sure that it has jurisdiction over it. For jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action is fundamental for a court to act on a given controversy, and is conferred only by law and not by the consent or waiver upon a court which, otherwise, would have no jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action. Lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action or the subject matter of an action cannot be cured by the silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent of the parties. If the court has no Jurisdiction over the nature of an action, its only jurisdiction is to dismiss the case. The court could not decide the case on the merits 5 " Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority to hear, try, and decide a case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter.'' Verily, this Court cannot inquire into the validity of the assessment if it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case. In the case at bar, the basis for the dismissal of the Petition for Review filed by Petitioner is grounded on the fact that it was belatedly filed. The Second Division ruled that the thirty-day period under Section 11 "' of Republic 1\ct ("ltA") No. 112557 , as amended by R.A. No. 928258 should be counte~ 54 Nippon Express (Philippines) Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 185666, February 04, 2015. 55 Perfecto Velasquez, Jr. v. Lisondra Land Incorporated, Represented by Edwin L. Lisondra, G.R. No. 231290, August 27, 2020. 56 SEC. 11. Who May Appeal; Mode of Appeal; Effect of Appeal. - Any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry or the Secretary of Agriculture or the Central Board of Assessment Appeals or the Regional Trial Courts may file an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or ruling or after the expiration of the period fixed by law for action as referred to in Section 7(a)(2) herein .... 57 An Act Creating The Court Of Tax Appeals, June 16, 1954. 58 An Act Expanding The Jurisdiction Of The Court Of Tax Appeals (CTA), Elevating Its Rank To The Level Of A Collegiate Court With Special Jurisdiction And Enlarging Its Membership, Amending For The Purpose Certain Sections Of Republic Act No. 1125, As Amended,

DECISION CTA EB No. 2760 (CTA Case No. 10864) from Petitioner's receipt of the \'(!arrants of Garnishment, or at the most lenient of interpretations, from its receipt of the October 22, 2021 Letter from the BIR. Petitioner insists however that saic.l thirty-day period shoulc.l be counted from the receipt of the .:-\pril 04, 2022 Letter. \V'e analyze. In the case at bar, the following arc the factual antecec.lents that eventually leu to the filing by Petitioner of its Petition for Review before the court a quo: � February 09, 2021 -The P.-\N was issuec.l. � J\Iarch 18, 2021 - The FLD was issued. .-\ccording to Responc.lent, it was received by Petitioner through its Branch 1-Ieac.l on illarch 29, 2021, while Petitioner alleges that it "officially receivec.l" the FLD on "-\pril 14, 2021. � J\Iay 14, 2021 -Petitioner ftlec.l its protest to the FLD. � June 28, 2021 - Respondent issued a Letter denying Petitioner's protest to the FLD. � July 28, 2021- \\?arrants of Garnishment were issuec.l. � August 13, 2021 - Petitioner was informed by BDO of the \\!arrant of Garnishment. � .-\ugust 16, 2021 - Petitioner was informec.l by DBP of the \\!arrant of Garnishment. � c\ugust 23, 2021 -Petitioner wrote a Letter to RD Florantc R. "-\ninag in response to the Junc 28, 2021 Letter. � .-\ugust 31, 2021- Petitioner wrote a Letter to Atty. Emelita R. "-\bo, Revenue District Officer of Revenue District Office No. 63 in response to the \V'arrants of Garnishment. � October 22, 2021 - RD Florante R. Aninag issued a Letter in relation to Petitioner's .-\ugust 23, 2021 and ,-\ugust 31, 2021 Letters. � November 26, 2021 -Petitioner wrote a Letter to RD Florante R. "\ninag in response to the October 22, 2021 Letter. � J\Iarch 18, 2022 - Petitioner flied an ,\ffic.lavit-Complaint before the Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission. � ,\pril 21, 2022 - Petitioner rcccivcc.l a Letter datec.l ,\prtl 04, 2022 from RD Florantc R. ,-\ninag in relation to Petitioner's November 26, 2021 Letter. � J\Iay 23, 2022 - Petitioner filed a Petition for Review before the Second Division appealing the Letter dated .April 04, 2022j-/ Otherwise Known As The Law Creating The Court Of Tax Appeals, And For Other Purposes, March 30 2004. ----���-�--

DECISION CTA EB No. 2760 (CTA Case No. 10864) After a review of the documents supporting the facts above, it can be deduced that the \XIarrants of Garnishment, signed by Atty. Emelita R. Abo, OIC-Revenue District Officer on behalf of the CIR, should be considered as the decision appealable to this Court, and not the Letter dated F\pril 04, 2022 from RD Florante R. ,\ninag denpng Petitioner's November 26, 2021 Letter. In cases where the validity of the \'(/arrant of Garnishment is put in question, the thirty-day period under Section 11 of ILA No. 1125, as amended shall be reckoned from the taxpayer's receipt of the \X:arrant of Garnishment. This is because said warrant directs the bank to seize the taxpayer's bank account to settle the BIIZ's assessment. It reiterates the alleged tax deficiency assessment due from a taxpayer, requesting its payment from the bank to which the warrant was served. Such order or letter is tantamount to an outright denial of the taxpayer's protest to the assessment. It is a clear indication of the firm stand of the BIR against the reconsideration or reinvestigation of the disputed assessment. Simply put, it is a deemed rejection of the request to reconsider or reinvestigate. 59 Petitioner was not left in the dark to guess as to which letter or action from the BIR constitutes the decision appealable to this Court since jurisprudence dictates that a warrant is equivalent to a denial of the protest. In CollmtiSJ-ioner of lntema! Revenue v. A(gm, Im�. 6", a \Varrant of Distraint and Levy was treated as the CIR's final decision, to wit: "[A]s a rule the warrant of distraint and levy is 'proof of the finality of the assessment' and 'renders hopeless a request for reconsideration,' being 'tantamount to an outright denial thereof and makes the said rec1uest deemed rejected.' 1\Ioreover, in Co111111iniomr of Intemaf Revenue JJ. Sol!t!J Entertainment Gaf!e~y, lnc. 61 , it was ruled that "[t]he warrant of distraint or levy issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue constitutes constructive and final denial of [the taxpayer's] protest". Like a warrant of distraint or levy, a warrant of garnishment under Section 208 of the ~IRC of 1997, as amended, is a civil remedy given to the government for collection of taxes. In the eyes of the BIR, the assessment stage had already ended and the collection stage begins./ 59 See Oceanic Wireless Network Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 148380, December 09, 2005. 60 G.R. No. L-28896, February 17, 1988. 61 G.R. No. 225809, March 17, 2021.

DECISION CTA EB No. 2760 (CTA Case No. 10864) It should be clear to the taxpayer that its protest had already been denied with the issuance of the warrant of garnishment. In the words of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Intemaf Rel)eflm v. !Jabe!a Cultural Cmporation"", "[h]ow then could [the taxpayer] have been made to believe that its request for reconsideration was still pending determination, despite the actual threat of seizure of its properties?" Considering that Petitioner was notified of the Warrants of Garnishment by BDO and DBP on August 13, 2021 and August 16, 2021, respectively, and the Petition for Review was filed with the Second Division on May 23, 2022 or only after two hundred eighty-three (283) days from notice of the first \'(larrants of Garnishment snved to BDO, it is \vithout doubt that the petition was not timely filed. Instead of appealing the \'V'arrants of Garnishment with the CTA, Petitioner wrote a Letter on August 23, 2021 to RD Florantc R. Aninag, while another letter was sent to .c\tty. Emelita R. Abo on August 31, 2021. Then, in response to the October 22, 2021 Letter from the BIR, Petitioner then wrote a third letter to lill Florante R. Aninag on November 26, 2021 and flied an Affidavit-Complaint before the Presidential .\nti-Corruption Commission on l\hrch 18, 2022. It must be emphasized that these letters filed by Petitioner against the \Varrants of Garnishment are not part of the taxpayer's remedies under the NIRC of 1997, as amended or pertinent BIR rules and regulations. As such, they cannot extend the decision already issued by the BIR on the assessment being disputed. To reiterate, perfection of an appeal in the manner and \vithin the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. The failure to perfect an appeal as required by the rules has the effect of defeating the right to appeal of a part\� and precluding the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. 63 .\ll in all, \'(1e see no reason to reverse the conclusion and ruling of the Second Division. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review filed \vith the Court En Banr on June 14, 2023 is DENIED for lack of merit. c\ccordingly, the Resolutions dated January 31, 2023 and May 05, 2023 in Cl'A Case No. 10864 arc AFFIRMED/ 62 G.R. No. 135210, July 11, 2001. 63 Commisioner of Internal Revenue v. Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation, G.R. No. 167606, August 11, 2010.

DECISION ~-~~~. CTA EB No. 2760 (CTA Case No. 10864) Page 12 of 13 MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN "-\ssociate Justice SO ORDERED. WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~ ~;;; ,/x-<.c.~- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN c\ssociate Justice -VILLENA ~9~,t~-F~~ MARIAN IVIF. REYlks~FA{ARDO ,\ssociatc Justice ~X LANEE S. CUI-DAVID .\ssociatc Justice

DECISION CTA EB No. 2760 (CTA Case No. 10864) HENRY~NGELES Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to .\rticle 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. Presiding Jus rice