GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (Consolidated with CTA Case No. 8954)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City Third Division GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL, INC., CTA CASE NOS. 8953 & 8954 Petitioner, Members: -versus - UY, Chairperson RINGPIS-LIBAN, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, ]].. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Promulgated: x------------ --- ---------------------------------------------- ~-- l't_~~::- ~~ ~~-------x AMENDED DECISION RINGPIS-LIBAN,J : Before this Court is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration flied on September 02, 2020, with respondent's Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration) flied through registered mail on October 08, 2020, and received by the Court on October 16, 2020. On July 28, 2020, this Co urt rendered a Decision denying petitioner's claim for refund of erroneously assessed excise taxes on removals of its distilled spirits or finished products, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, in ligh t of the foregoing, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED for insufficiency of evidence. SO ORDERED." In its Motion, petitioner maintains that the court-commissioned Independent Certified Public Accountant ("ICPA") has sufficiently proven the quantity of finished goods that were produced using tax-paid raw materials. It insist that the use of the "First-In, First-Out" ("FIFO") method of accounting, which summarizes the proof of liters of alcohol utilized or processed from the /~

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NOS. 8953 & 8954 2012 year-end inventory and January 08, 2013 to February 15, 2013 alcohol purchases, readily matched the proof of liters with the corresponding proof of liters of alcohol produced/transferred for packing. As such, petitioner asserts that it simply needs to show that the finished goods were "produced exclusively" from ethyl alcohol on which the excise taxes had already been paid and need not anymore show "how many units of raw alcohol is required to produce one unit of finished goods". Lastly, petitioner also points out that respondent did not object to the ICPA's procedure and report when offered and admitted by the Court, thus, the same should be conclusive upon this Court. On the other hand, respondent claims that petitioner must prove its entitlement to the refund sought. He asserts that claims for refund partake the nature of exemptions and are strictly construed against the claimant and cannot be allowed unless granted in the most explicit and categorical language. Accordingly, this Court finds the present Motion for Reconsideration partially meritorious. To recall, the Court based its findings on the statement in the ICPA Supplemental Report dated March 20, 2017, that the raw alcohol inventory of 41,625,364.78 proof liters with corresponding excise tax payments of Php611,060,354.84 were with "complete documentation" and "supported by Excise Tax Removal Declaration (ETRDs)". Petitioner, now, argues the 15,055,756 proof liters with excise tax payment of Php221,018,510.00, and 744,997 proof liters with excise tax payment of Php10,936,556.14, raw alcohol inventory which were disallowed by the Court are supported by competent documents, such as supplier's sales invoice for alcohol purchases, supplier's official receipts for payment of reimbursement of excise tax, bills of lading, and the January Official Registry Books (ORBs). To clarify, the following items per ICPA's 5upplementa! Report, are the subject of this argument, viz: 2. Partially supported Proof Liters Excise Tax c. Supported by supplier's sales invoice for alcohol 7,861,125.77 Php115,401,326.23 purchases, supplier's official receipts for payment of reimbursement of excise tax and bill of lading but 7,070,303.31 103,792,052.60 with missing IEIRD, SAD and SSDT. /,/ d. Supported by supplier's sales invoice for alcohol purchases, bill of lading but with missing IEIRD, SAD and SSDT. Exhibit No. "P-6.a", electronic exhibit.

AMENDED DECISION 124,327.74 Php1,825,131.17 CTA CASE NOS. 8953 & 8954 Page 3 of 13 15,055,756.81 221,018,510.00 744,997.01 10,936,556.14 e. Supported by supplier's billing statements for reimbursement of excise taxes and supplier's official receipt for payment of reimbursement of excise tax but with missing excise tax returns for alcohol products (BIR Form No. 2200-A) and payment confirmation. Sub-total Comnoundf>d Alcohol 5.Supporting documents not available for verification** As to the 744,997.01 proof liters with equivalent excise taxes of Php10,936,556.14, these shall remain disallowed since petitioner did not present supporting documents to prove otherwise. With regard to the partially supported raw alcohol inventory, since these are composed of the different sources of raw materials (i.e., local importer, molasses tolling and importations), the Court finds that the lack of Import Entry Internal Revenue Declarations ("IEIRDs"), Single Administrative Documents ("SADs"), and Statements of Settlement of Duties and Taxes ("SSDTs") are only relevant to importations. As such, based on Annex 11 of the ICPA Supplemental Report, the remaining partially supported proof liters of 15,055,756.81 are broken down as follows: PARTIALLY SUPPORTED I. RAW ALCOHOL PROOF LITER EXCISE TAX (PL) 1. Damortis, La Union A. Molasses tolling Sub-total - - 2. Sta. Barbara A. Molasses tolling 67,357.49 988,808.01 Sub-total B. Local Importer 67,357.49 988,808.01 C. Importation - - 3. EPSBPI-Cauayan Sub-total A. Molasses tolling 4. SNFI-Polo Brewery Sub-total A. Molasses tolling B. Local Importer C. Importation - - 5. Cabuyao Plant 127,080.08 1,865,535.62 Sub-total A. Molasses tolling 127,080.08 1,865,535.62 B. Local Importer C. Importation /V

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NOS. 89S3 & 8954 6. HBO-Makiling A. Molasses tolling Sub-total - - 7. BBTI-Bauan A. Molasses tolling B. Local Importer Sub-total - - 8. SBTI-Calaca A. Local Importer B. Importation 6,875,865.73 100,937,708.98 Sub-total 6,875,865.73 100,937,708.98 9. Lucena A. Molasses tolling B. Local Importer C. Importation Sub-total - - 10. Cotta A. Molasses tolling B. Local Importer C. Importation Sub-total - - 11. EPSBPI-Ligao A. Molasses tolling B. Importation Sub-total - - 12. Tabangao A. Molasses tolling Sub-total - - 13. Mandanue 124,327.74 1,825,131.17 124,327.74 1,825,131.17 A. Molasses tolling B. Importation Sub-total 14. Ouano A. Molasses tolling Sub-total - - 15. DBI 7,861,125.77 115,401,326.23 A. Local Importer 7,861,125.77 115,401,326.23 15,055,756.81 221,018,510.00 B. Importation Sub-total SUB-TOTAL (RAW ALCOHOL) II. COMPOUNDED ALCOHOL* 1. Sta. Barbara Plant 2. EPSBPI-Cauayan 3. SNFI-Polo Brewery 4. Cabuyao Plant 5. HBO-Makiling 6. Lucena Plant ~

AMENDED DECISION - - CTA CASE NOS. 8953 & 8954 Page 5 of 13 15,055,756.81 221,018,510.00 7. EPSBPI-Ligao 8. Mandaue Plant SUB-TOTAL (COMPOUNDED ALCOHOL) GRAND TOTAL From the foregoing, with the exception of raw materials in Mandaue and DBI Plants, all the rest of the partially supported raw materials are importations that require IEIRDs, SADs and SSDTs in order to prove receipt of goods and payment of corresponding excise taxes. Meanwhile, Mandaue and DBI Plant's purchases from local importers of 124,327.74 and 7,861,125.77 proof liters of raw alcohol with paid excise taxes of Php1,825,131.17 and Php115,401,326.23, respectively, are found to be properly supported. However, it needs to be emphasized that petitioner's claim is the excise tax paid upon removal of Finished Goods that were produced using the above raw materials inventory. Therefore, the excise taxes on finished goods related to the disallowed raw materials of 7,070,303.30 proof liters (15,055,756.81 proof liters less 124,327.74 and 7,861,125.77 proof liters) shall therefore be disallowed. Also, in Part V of petitioner's Motion, petitioner pointed out that the assailed Decision stated that the differences between the "total amount of goods transferred to packing" and "the finished goods that are subject of the present claim" based on tables which it had prepared, "were not explained by petitioner". For this reason, petitioner claims that the differences noted by the Court are due to the fact that in the tables prepared by the Court, the respective beginning inventory balances for raw alcohol and compounded alcohol of the plants in question were not included. These balances are reflected in the Annexes utilized by the Court. If these inventory balances are included in the tables, the alleged differences noted by the Court will be accounted for or reconciled. The Court finds petitioner's explanation tenable. Notably, in the assailed Decision, the Court compared the utilization of raw alcohol into the production of finished goods, the Court traced the proof liters of "Alcohol Received" per Annex 5 of the ICPA Report representing the raw alcohol that each plant received from one or several depots, to "Alcohol Utilized" found in Annex 6. The following table was made to ascertain that the raw alcohol from the 2012 ending inventory of depots that were subsequently transferred to plants for compounding, tolling and packing in 2013 are the same raw alcohol that went into the finished goods produced during the period of claim (i.e., January 01,2013 to May 31, 2013): ,. v

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NOS. 8953 & 8954 Alcohol Received from Plant Alcohol Utilized Reconciliation Annex Location Proof Liters Annex Location Proof Liters Difference Beginning Actual Inventory of Raw Production (1,657,304) Difference (1,172,936) and (2,481,992) Compounded Alcohol Within (270,952) the Plant 5.1 Cabuyao Plant 11,864,136 6.1 Cabuyao Plant 13,521,440 1,657,304 3,537,680 5.2 Mandaue, Cebu 2,364,744 6.2 Mandauc, Ccbu 1,172,936 14,301,758 5.3 Sta. Barbara, 11,819,766 6.3 Sta. Barbara, 6,362,202 2,481,992 - Pangasinan 28,168 Pangasinan 4,637,077 5.4 Calamba, Laguna 6,091,250 6.4 Calamba, 2,242,458.00 270,952 - Laguna 44,630,783 5.5 Polo Brewery, � 6.5 Polo Brewery, (28,168) Valenzuela Valenzuela 5.6 Cauayan, Isabcla 4,467,960 6.6 Cauayan, (169,117) 169,117 - Isabela 5.7 I.igao, Albay 1,842,750 6.7 Ligao, Albay (399,708) 399,708 5.8 J.ucena City " TOTAL 38,450,606 TOTAL (6,180,177) This plottl did t~ol n:cril't mu� ok:ohollmt alnatf.y twnpoulldtd alroboL "'*No loiiJ'!f' imimltd sim~ 1-tttt!ltl Plant dol'S 1101 producr FG. In the Motion, petitioner elucidated that the differences noted by the Court are from the beginning inventory balances for raw alcohol and the compounded alcohol of petitioner's plants were not included. Thus, the resulting actual production difference based on the above table shows that the alcohol received from the Plants are also the Alcohol Utilized by petitioner in producing its finished goods for the given period ofJanuary 1, 2013 to May 31, 2013. Moreover, in Part VI of the Motion, petitioner brings up the ruling of the Court that "petitioner has the responsibility to show the utilization ofthe raw material alcohol into the production offinished goods by way ofshowing how many units ofraw alcohol is required to produce one unit offinished goods." Petitioner states that there is a procedure to determine how many units of raw alcohol is required to produce one unit of finished goods, to wit: Divide proof liters ("PL") by the number of cases to arrive at the PL per case, and to find the alcohol per unit of finished goods, divide the PL per case by the number of units/bottles per case. The resulting quotients after performing the above procedure are in fact consistent with the PL declared in the respective bottle labels and case box cartons of GSMI, which had been approved by and registered with the BIR. However, upon scrutiny, the Court notes that the number of bottles per case was not provided by petitioner. The number of bottles per case can neither be assumed nor ascertained for other products of spirits or liquor. Nonetheless, petitioner points out that during the audit, examination and verification, the ICPA considered this procedure when he matched the proof /Y'

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NOS. 8953 & 8954 liters of the tax-paid alcohol with the corresponding proof liters of the alcohol produced/transferred for packing. In Part VII of the Motion, petitioner explains that the segregation of finished goods between those produced by raw alcohol purchased before the effectivity of Republic Act ("RA") No. 10351 2 and those produced by alcohol purchased after is shown in Annex 6 of the ICPA Report. Petitioner states that it is essential to follow the tracing of the composition of the outstanding balance of the alcohol inventory of a particular manufacturing plant prior to the receipt of the alcohol volume in question. Petitioner claims that in the assailed Decision, the Court provided the following example, a portion of Annex 6.3, to show why it was unable to ascertain the basis of the segregation of finished goods, to wit: FINISHED GOODS FINISHED GOODS PRODUCED PRODUCED FINISHED FROM2012 GOODS EXHIBIT DATE EXHIBIT ETRD ETRD PRODUCT NO. GL PL YEAR-END TOTAL P-20-9-H DATE NO. DESCRIP OF INVENTORY PRODUCED PL CASES FROM 2013 TION AND ALCOHOL JANUARYB, PURCHASES 2013TO AFTER FEBRUARY RA10351** 15, 2013 (PL) ALCOHOL PURCHASES (PL) 2/5/ P-12-1304 2/5/2013 432905 GSM 22,725 190,893 152,714 105,214 47,500 152,714 2013 Round Petitioner explains that in the above example, it is shown that prior to the receipts of the 41,580 PL of alcohol from the Damortis (La Union) depot, the Sta. Barbara Plant already had an outstanding balance of 130,870 PL of alcohol, with origin and other details as follows: Berbacs Chemical Inc., 1/17/13, 11,550 (PL]; Berbacs Chemical Inc., 1/18/13, 47,500; Damortis La Union, 1/18/[13], 35910; and Damortis, La Union, 1/21/13, 35,910. The outstanding balance can be traced back using the preceding lines on page 3 of Annex 6.3. It will be noted that the ICPA indicated an asterisk ("*") to specific lines to emphasize that this outstanding balance of alcohol represents alcohol purchased in 2013 after RA No. 10351 took effect. Perforce, petitioner's explanations can be seen in the replication of the / v same portion of Annex 6.3: 2 "AN ACT RESTRUCTURING THE EXCISE TAX ON ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS BY AMENDING SECTIONS 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 8, 131 AND 288 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8424. OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1997, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9334, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES", approved on December 19, 2012.

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NOS. 8953 & 8954 FINISHED GOODS PRODUCED FINISHED GOODS ALCOHOL FINISHED PRODUCED GOODS DATE ORIGIN UTILIZED PRODUCT NO. GL PL BALANCE FROM2012 TOTAL PL DESCRIPTION OF (PL) YEAR-END PRODUCED PL CASES INVENTORY FROM2013 43,462 ALCOHOL AND PURCHASES JANUARY8, AFTER 2013TO RA10351** FEBRUARY (PL) 15,2013 ALCOHOL PURCHASES (PL) 1/15/2013 Damortis, 35,910 1/15/2013 La Union 1/15/2013 Damortis, 35,910 79,372 1/17/2013 La Union Damort:is, 34,020 GSM Frasco 14,188 119,181 95,345 18,047 95,345 95,345 1/18/2013 La Union 45,600 7,753 65,122 52,098 1/18/2013 Bcrbacs CSM 11,550 6,498 45,600 5~098 1/21/201.1 Chemical, 22,725 190,893 152,714 1/21/2013 Inc. Frasguito Berbacs Chemical, � 47,500 59,050 Inc. Damortis, � 35,910 94,960 La Union 130,870 Damortis, 35,910 La Union 19,735 Damortis, 41,580 GSM Round 105,214 47,500 152,714 La Union Moreover, petitioner also points out that in the assailed Decision, the Court cannot ascertain the segregation made by the ICPA of the 152,714 proof liters of finished goods into 105,214 proof liters of finished goods produced from purchases of alcohol before RA No. 10351, and 47,500 proof liters of finished goods from purchases of alcohol after RA No. 10351. Petitioner posits that the method utilized by the ICPA is based on a prorating method, as may be deduced or gleaned from a portion of the ICPA Report (Table 3, at page 13; footnotes, at page 16, where the same method was used.) Petitioner argues that the method of prorating utilized by the ICPA is an accepted method, is mathematically and logically sound, and is a logical consequence of the FIFO method which the ICPA employed. This Court agrees. As discussed earlier, "Alcohol Received" plus the beginning balances of both raw and compounded alcohol is equal to the "Alcohol Utilized". Therefore, looking into Annex 6.1 as an example, we find that this represents the movement of raw alcohol upon receipt to conversion into finished goods, to wit: ALCOHOL FINISHED GOODS PRODUCED FINISHED FINISHED UTILIZED GOODS GOODS EXHIBIT PRODUCT PL BALANCE TOTALPL PL REFERENC DESCRIPTION (PL) PRODUCED PRODUCED FROM2012 FROM2013 /)/ E YEAR-END ALCOHOL INVENTORY PURCHASES AND JANUARY 8, AFTER 2013 TO RA 10351** FEBRUARY 15, 2013 ALCOHOL (PL)

AMENDED DECISION PURCHASES erA CASE NOS. 8953 & 8954 (PL) - 45,360 ' P-12-1180 (~SM Round 350ml 139,065 105,651 93,705 45,360 139,065 P-12-1180 wrap around 1,814 12,994 1,814 1,814 46,408 P-12-11H1 48,008 GSM Blue 350ml x 59,188 85,025 85,025 48,340 11,726 11,726 24 107,354 22,329 95,729 - P-12-1181 GSM Round 350ml 85,025 wrap around 11,726 10,603 58,973 GSM Blue 350ml x 106,223 24 151,583 48,370 8,604 55,854 � 47,250 � 45,360 45,360 P-12-1182 GSM Round 350ml 188,339 92,610 188,339 wrap around 47,250 It can be gleaned above that the running balance column increases and decreases upon utilization of raw alcohol and upon determination of finished goods, respectively. This is where the FIFO method can be observed. Thus, when raw alcohol is utilized in production that is marked by an asterisk ("*") (see PL column under Alcohol Utilized), the corresponding Finished Goods is subsequently segregated under the "Finished Goods Produced From 2013 Alcohol Purchases After RA 10351** (PL)" column in the same volume of proof liters. Also, when raw alcohol with an "*" successively enters production, the corresponding finished goods are summed up and are exclusively found under the aforementioned column (i.e., 47,250 plus 45,360 equals 92,610). On the other hand, if we look at the second example below, whenever raw alcohol with an "*" and raw alcohol without the asterisk (i.e., tax-paid raw alcohol) intermittently enters production, that is when the segregation or prorating into either columns of Finished Goods produced before or Finished Goods produced after RA 10351 takes place. This is an illustration of what petitioner has previously referred to as the "logical consequence of using the FIFO method", to wit: ALCOHOL FINISHED GOODS PRODUCED FINISHED UTILIZED GOODS PL EXHIBIT PRODUCT PL BALANCE PRODUCED FINISHED TOTAL REFERENC DESCRIPTION (PL) FROM2012 GOODS PL YEAR-END E INVENTOR PRODUCED 92,857 FROM2013 YAND ALCOHOL - JANUARYS, PURCHASES /Y' 2013TO AFTER FEBRUARY RA 10351** 15, 2013 (PL) ALCOHOL PURCHASES 92,857 (PL) 47,250 ' 52,996 7,389 47,250 ' P-12-1467 GSM Fco 700ml 92,857 54,639 47,250 �

AMENDED DEGSION CTA CASE NOS. 8953 & 8954 47,250 ' P-12-1468 GSM Fqt 350m! 95,733 6,156 95,733 95,733 44,888 51,044 45,360 ' P-12-1469 GSM Fqt 350m! 77,549 18,855 44,888 32,662 77,549 45,266 GSM Fqt 350m! 63,457 45,266 18,192 63,457 47,250 P-12-1470 663 45,171 GSM Fqt 350m! 67,529 47,913 20,279 47,250 - 46,967 ' GSM l'qt 350m! 37,585 25,555 37,585 67,529 34,937 37,585 P-12-1471 P-12-1472 It can also be noted in the above table that when the tax-paid raw alcohol (i.e., raw alcohol without the asterisk) is mixed with raw alcohol purchased after RA 10351 (t~e., raw alcohol with the asterisk), these also go direcdy under the column "Finished Goods Produced From 2012 Year-End Inventory And January 8, 2013 to February 15, 2013 Alcohol Purchases (PL)". Likewise, it was observed that the mixed raw alcohol purchases were only present in Cabuyao Plant (Annex 6.1), Sta. Barbara Plant (Annex 6.3), and Calamba Laguna Plant (HBO) (Annex 6.4). The rest of the Plants, summarized under Annexes 6.2, 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7, utilized the tax-paid raw alcohol fully, before introducing raw alcohol purchased after RA 10351 into production of Finished Goods. Lasdy, as to petitioner's additional assertion in its prayer that the Court further considers the ICPA's recommendation to include the additional amount ofPhp842,115,503.15 in its claim for refund, pertaining to: 1. Excise taxes on finished goods, in the amount of Php302,473,746.06 and with a total proof liters of 10,621,947 apparendy not included in the claim for refund but which should have been part thereof, as the finished goods were produced exclusively from the 2012 year-end inventories and alcohol purchases from period January 8, 2013 to February 15, 2013; and 2. Excise taxes on ethyl alcohol in the amount of Php114,842,431.59 and with a total proof liters of 4,063,500, apparendy not included in the claim for refund but which should have been part thereof, as the alcohol was already in transit during petitioner's 2012 year-end inventory count and was reflected in the January 2013 Official Registry Book. Such relief cannot be granted by this Court. /~

AMENDED DECISION CfA CASE NOS. 8953 & 8954 It is well-setded that courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for in the pleadings or in excess of what is being sought by a party to a case.3 The rationale for the rule was explained in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Teston,4 to wit: "Due process considerations justify this requirement. It is improper to enter an order which exceeds the scope of relief sought by the pleadings, absent notice which affords the opposing party an opportunity to be heard with respect to the proposed relief. The fundamental purpose of the requirement that allegations of a complaint must provide the measure of recovery is to prevent surprise to the defendant." For the same reason, this protection against surprises granted to defendants should also be available to petitioners. Verily, both parties to a suit are entided to due process against unforeseen and arbitrary judgments. The very essence of due process is "the sporting idea of fair play" which forbids the grant of relief on matters where a party to the suit was not given an opportunity to be heard.5 WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the dispositive portion of the Decision dated July 28, 2020, is hereby AMENDED to read as follows: "WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the instant Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, that petitioner is entided to a refund of its erroneously and excessively paid excise taxes for its finished goods removals from January 1, 2013 to May 31, 2013 that were produced using tax-paid raw materials, in the modified amount of THREE HUNDRED NINETEEN MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY- FIVE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY PESOS AND EIGHTY-TWO CENTAVOS (Php319,755,320.82), computed as follows: Excise tax on finished goods claimed by the Proof Liters Excise Tax Amount 25,375,105 Php 715,258,843.38 Petitioner ,.�" 3 Diona v. Balangue, G.R. No. 173559, January 17, 2013. 4 G.R. No. 174966, February 14, 2008. 5 Cherith A. Bucal v. Manny P. Bucal, G.R. No. 206957, June 17, 2015.

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NOS. 8953 & 8954 Less: Excise tax claimed by the Petitioner on 5,808,619 164,548,611.59 finished goods that were produced from ethyl 4,063,500 114,842,431.59 alcohol after RA 10351. (see Table 2 on page 12) 391,639 � i Ethyl alcohol and equivalent excise tax amount not 15,111,347 11,068,474.19 b included in the December 31, 2012 inventory under the Petition for review but reflected in the ORB. Php 424,799,326.01 (see Table 3 on page 13) 3,716,799.65 ' 105,044,005.19 d Compounded ethyl alcohol inventories and Php319,755,320.82 equivalent excise tax amount wherein the Petitioner 11,394,547.35 has difficulty in identifying the related purchase documents. These were used to produce fmished goods for the periods. January 1, 2013 to May 31, 2013. As adjustedper ICPA report (Exhibit P-6, p. 16) Less: Not properly supported raw materials on importation per this Court's verification Refundable Excise Taxes � Computed as: 744,997.10 alcoholproofliters divided by total alcoholproofliters of57,426,118.60 (see table on page 8, Exhibit P-6) then multiplied by the comspondingproofliters produ"d using HFO method based on movements in ORB of30,188,433 (see Table 1 page 12, Exhibit P-6). b Computed as: 0110,936,556.14 divided by the total exdse tax paid ofP843,015,420.98 (see table on page 8, Exhibit P-6) then multiplied by the comsponding exdse tax ofthe finished goods produ"d using FIFO method based on movements in ORB ofP853,183,977.34 (see Table 1page 12, Exhibit P-6). c Computed as: 7,070,303.30 al,~holproofliters divided by total al,~holproofliters of57,426,118.60 (see table on page 8, Exhibit P-6) then multiplied by the mmspondingproofliters produced using HFO method based on movements in ORB of30,188,433 (see Table 1 page 12, Exhibit P-6). d Computed as: Php/03,792,052.60 divided by the total exdse tax paid ofi1843,015,420.98 (see table on page 8, Exhibit P-6) then multiplied by the mmsponding ex1ise tax ofthe finished goods produced using FIFO method based on movements in ORB ofP853,183,977.34 (see Table 1page 12, Exhibit P-6). SO ORDERED." SO ORDERED. ~- /~ /<...___ WE CONCUR: MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ERL~P.UY Associate Justice

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NOS. 8953 & 8954 MARIA RoWENA MO:iJES lJ-~AN PEDRO ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above amended decision were reached in consultation before the cases were assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. ERL~P.UY Associate Justice Chairperson 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 cases were assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. Presiding Justice