PHILIPPPINE TOBACCO FLUE-CURING AND REDRYING CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City EN BANC PHILIPPINE TOBACCO FLUE- CTA EB CASE NO. 566 CURING AND REDRYING (CTA Case No. 7377) CORPORATION , Peti ti oner, Present: - v e rsus- ACOSTA', P.J., CASTANEDA JR . BAUTISTA UY CASANOVA PALANCA-ENRIQUEZ FABON-VICTOR INO MINDARO-GRU LLA COTANGCO-MANALASTAS, JJ . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Promulgated: OCT 2 2 2010 4{'<1+~{~~--- Respondent. "Y, tr7 ~, :..1'� x----------------------------------------------------------------------�----------------x DECISION MINDARO -G RULLA, J. : Submitted for decision is a Petition for Review for the Court en bane under Ru le 8, Sec tion 4 (b), of th e 2005 Revised Rules of the Court o f Tax Appeals, as amended, of the Decision l da ted August 10, 2009 , rendered by this Court's former Second Division 2 in CTA Case No. 7377, and its Resolutio n3 dated O c tober 30, 2009. 1 En bane Docke t, pp. 27-5 1. 2 Penned by Associat e Justice O lga Polanco-Enriquez, concurred in by Associa te Justice Juanito C. Cas taneda, Jr. and Associa te Jus tice Erlinda P. Uy. 3 En bane Docket, pp. 53-54. 1358

Philippine Toba c co Flue-Curing and Redrying C orporation Page 2 of 15 vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue CTA EB Case No. 566 (CTA Case No. 7377) DECISION Petitioner seeks a reversal of both the aforesaid Decision and Resolution, the dispositive portions of which, respectively, read as follows: Decision dated August 10, 2009: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present Petition for Review is hereby DISMISSED for lock of merit. Accordingly, petitioner is hereby ORDERED TO PAY the respondent the amount of ONE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND TWENTY TWO and 47I 100 PESOS (P 1,720,022.47) , representing its deficiency excise tax for the period covering January 1, 2002 to March 31 , 2004. In addition, petitioner is hereby ORDERED TO PAY a delinquency interest equivalent to twenty (20 %) per annum on the amount of P 1,720.022.47 from March 1, 2005, until full payment thereof, pursuant to Section 249(C ) (3) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. so ORDERED. II Reso lution dated October 30, 2009: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" is hereby DENIED for lock of merit. so ORDERED.II The undisputed facts are stated hereunder. Petitioner Phi lippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and Redrying Corporation (or PTFC) is a corporation primarily engaged in the business as a tobacco dealer and is classified as an L-6 permittee4. 4 Jo int Stipulati o n o f Fa c ts and Iss ues, thi s Co urt ' s fo rm e r Se co nd Divisio n Doc ket. pp. 133- 136. 1359

Philipp ine Tobacco Flu e-C uring an d Re drying Corpo rati o n Page 3 o f 15 vs . Commissio ne r o f Inte rnal Rev enu e CTA EB C ase No. 56 6 (C TA C as e No. 7377 ) DECISION Respondent is the duly appointed Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR") , vested with authority to exercise the functions of said office, including inter alia, the power to abate or cancel a tax assessments On February 7, 2005, petitioner received a Formal Letter of Demand dated January 19, 2005, with Details of Deficiency Excise Tax on Removals of Partially Manufactured Leaf Tobacco, and an Audit Result/Assessment Notice dated January 18, 2005 , for deficiency excise tax amounting to~ 1,720,022.476, computed as follows 7: Vo lume o f Re m ov al s o f Partially Manufac ture d To bacco (in kg s. ) l ,364,297 Multiplie d by Ta x Rate 0. 75 Basic De fi c ie nc y Exc ise Tax g l ,023,222.75 Add : 25% Surc harg e 255 ,805.69 Interest up to 2-28-05 440 994.03 To tal De fi c ie nc y Exc ise Tax Due ~ l ,720,022. 47 On February 28, 2005, petitioner filed an administrative protest against the abovementioned deficiency tax assessment. Thereafter, on April 28, 2005 , petitioner filed a Supplemental Protest letter. On November 23, 2005, petitioner filed a petition for rev1ew before this Court due to respondent's inaction. The same was raffled to this Court's former Second Division. The p a rties stipulated on the following issues for consideration: 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Exhib it " H", thi s Court' s former Seco nd Divisio n Docke t, pp. l 22-123 1360

Philippine Toba cco Flue-Curing and Re drying Corporati o n Page 4 of 15 vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue CTA EB Case No. 566 (CTA Case No . 7377) DECISION "1. Whether or not petitioner is liable for deficiency excise tax on stemmed leaf tobacco based on Sec. 144 of the NIRC of 1997. 2. Whether or not the ruling in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. La Campana Fobrico de Tobocos, Inc . is applicable to this case . 3. Whether o r not Sec . 130 (A)(2) of the NIRC of 1997 is applic able to the petitioner. 4. Whether or no t petitioner is liable to pa y the amount of ~ I,720,022.4 7 for the period beginning January I, 2002 up to Marc h 31 , 2004 as defic ien c y e xcise ta x. 5. Whether or not the Hon orable Court of Ta x Appeals has jurisdiction in this Case." After trial, this Court's former Second Division rendered the assailed Decision 8 c iting Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. La Campana Fabrica de Tabacos , lnc.9(La Campana Case), Campania General de Taba c os de Filipinos vs. Court of Appeals lO(Compania Case)and Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory, lnc.ll (La Suerte Case). The pertinent portion of the assailed Decision reads: "Considering further that there is no showing that petitioner has been recognized as on L-7 tobacco manufac turer, thus, it c ann o t be e xempt from the pa yment of excise ta x under Section 140. Thus , petitioner c ann o t be exempt from the pa yment of excise ta x under Section 144. s This Court 's former Seco nd Divisio n Docke t, p p. 44 6-470 9 G. R. No. 145275, Novem b e r 15, 200 1, 369 SCRA 122 10 G. R. No. 14 736 1. M arc h 23, 2004, 426 SCRA 2 10 11 G .R. No. 139803, Sep tember 2, 2005 , 469 SCRA 346. 1361

Philippine Toba cco Flue-C uring and Re drying Corporatio n Page 5 of 15 vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue CTA EB Case No. 566 (CTA Case No. 7377 ) DECISION In sum, the Court finds petitioner liable for deficiency excise tax covering the period from January 1, 2002 to March 31 ,2004." Pe titioner filed therefrom a Motion for Reconsideration 12 which was denied in a Resolution 13 dated October 30, 2009. Hence , petitioner filed this Petition for Review before the Court en bane. At the outset, on September 9, 2010 , petitioner filed a "Manifestation with Motion" alleging that it had applied for an abatement or cancellation of the delinquency interest and also paid the deficiency excise tax thereon. Thus, petitioner prayed for the reduction of its surety bond . However, the records show that no evidence was presented to prove that petitioner's application for an abatement or cancellation of the delinquency interest was approved and granted by respondent. Thus , petitioner's motion for reduction of the surety bond is deemed moot and academic. In assailing the Decision and Resolution of this Court's Division , petitioner raised this sole issue: "WITH DUE RESPE C T TO THI S HO N O RA BLE CO URT'S (FORMER)2ND DIVISION , IT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT PETITIONER IS NOT LIABLE FOR DEFICIENCY EXCISE TA X ON STEMMED LEAF TOBAC C O BASED ON SEC. 144 OF THE NIRC OF 1997." Simply stated , the issue raised is whether petitioner is subject to excise tax on stemmed leaf tobacco. 12 This Court' s fo rm e r Second Divisio n Docke t, p p . 473-493 13 This Court 's form er Secon d Divisio n Docke t, p p. 50 1-502 L 136 2

Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and Redrying Corporation Page 6 of 15 vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue CTA EB Case No. 566 (CTA Case No. 7377) DEC JSJON Petiti o ner's arguments that it is n o t liable fo r the deficiency excise tax on stemmed leaf tobacco are summarized as follows : 1. Revenue Regulations No. 17-67 w hic h includes and classifies "stemmed leaf tobacco" as "partially manufactured tobacco" is uncons titutional, resu lting to administrative legislation. The "partially manufactured tobacco " that Sec ti on 144 o f the NIRC o f 1997 subjec ted to exc ise ta x is not th e some as the stemmed leaf tobacco which Section 140 of th e some Code exempted fro m payment. Th e prolonged practice in not subjecting stemmed leaf tobacco to excise ta x proves th a t no excise ta xes were intended to be imposed th ereon and that the exempti on from payment o f excise tax under Sec. 140 is brood enough to cover a ll kinds o f tobacco manufacturers, w ithout distinction. 2. The La Campana case is inapplicable. In the said case, th e L-6 permittee (tran sferor) was not held liable for deficiency excise tax but rather the L-7 permitee (tran sferee) was held lia b le. Thu s, in the present case it shou ld be the transferee 14 (Philip Morris Phil Inc. and Mighty Corporation ) that should be held liable for the excise ta x. 3. Pursuant to Sec . 130 (A) (2) o f the NIRC o f 1997, it is the manufacturer that shou ld be held liable for the payment of excise tax. Petiti oner, being in the c la ss o f "who lesa le leaf tobacco dealers" is not a manufacturer or producer, th us, not liable fo r the payment of excise ta x. We find no merit in petitioner's argumen ts. Petitio ner is subject to excise tax on stemmed leaf tobacco . Petitioner was assessed pursuant to Revenue Memorandum Circu lar (RMC) No. 18-2002 15 and Sec ti on 144 16 o f the NIRC o f 1997 . 14 En Bane Doc ke t, p . 2 1 15 Interpretatio n o f the pertinent provisio n o f Se c tio n 140 o f the Natio nal Internal Re venue C o d e o f 1997 b y the Suprem e Court o f the Philippines in G. R. No. 145275. 16 SEC.144. Tobac co Produ c ts. - There shall be collec ted a ta x of ( P0 .75 on ea c h kil o gram of the foll owing pro duc ts of to ba cc o: l.. 136 .3

Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and Redrying Corporation Page 7 of 15 vs . Commissioner of Internal Revenue CTA EB Case No. 566 (CTA Case No . 7377) DECISION Said Revenue Memorandum Circular cited the La Campana Case 17 the pertinent portion of which reads: "We agree with the petitioner that the exemption from specific tax of the sole of stemmed leaf tobacco as row material by one L-7 directly to another L-7 is because such stemmed leaf tobacco has been subjected to specific tax when on L-7 manufacturer purchased the some from wholesale leaf tobacco dealers designated under Section 3, Chapter I, Revenue Regulations No. 17-67(supro) as L-3, L-3F, L-3R, L-4, or L- 6, the Iotter being also a stripper of leaf tobacco. These ore the sources of stemmed leaf tobacco to be used as row materials by on L-7 manufacturer which does not produce stemmed leaf tobacco. When on L-7 manufacturer sells the stemmed leaf tobacco purchased from the foregoing suppliers to another L-7 manufacturer as row material, such sole is not subject to specific tax under section 137(now Section 140) , as implemented by Section 20(o) of Revenue Regulations No. V-39. xxx' In view of the said Supreme Court decision, all removals of stemmed leaf tobacco by leaf tobacco dealers (i.e. L-3, L-3 '/.s, L-3R, L-4, L-6) are subject to the specific tax of ~ 0.75 per kilogram imposed under Section 144 of the NIRC, in addition to the inspection fee imposed under Section 146 of the some Code. However, removals of said leaf tobacco product by an L- 7 (a manufacturer of tobacco products) shall be exempt from such specific tax pursuant to the said Supreme Court decision . xxx" (Emphasis supplied) (o) To ba cco tw iste d b y hand o r reduc ed int o a conditi o n to be consumed in any mann er o the r than the ordinary m ode o f drying and c uring; (b) To bacco prepared or partially prepared with or without the use of any m ac hine or in struments o r w ithout being pressed or sweetened; and (c ) Fine-c ut shorts and re fus e, sc ra ps , clippings , stems and swe e pings o f tobacc o . Fine sh ort s and re fu se , sc raps, c lippings, c uttings, stems and swe e pings of toba c co resulting from the handling or stripping o f w hole leaf tobacc o may be transferred, disposed of, or otherwise so ld, with out prepayment o f th e exc ise tax herein provided for under suc h conditions os may be pre sc ribed in the rule s and regulatio ns pro mulgated b y the Secretory o f � Finance, upo n recommend a ti o n o f th e Commissio ner, if th e some ore to be exported or to be used in the manufac ture o f o th er to ba cco prod uc ts o n w hi c h th e exc ise ta x w ill eventually be paid on the fini shed pro duct . O n to ba cco spe cia lly prepared for c hewing so os to be unsuitable for use in any manner, o n eac h kil ogram , Sixty c entavo (P0.60). 17 Supra . No te 9 L 136 4

Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and Redrying Corpora ti on Page 8 of 15 vs. Commissioner o f Internal Revenue CTA EB Case No. 566 (CTA Case No. 7377) DE C ISION The abovementioned Revenue Memorandum Circular is in accord with Revenue Regulations No. 17-67 which classifies stemmed- leaf toba cco as "partially manufactured toba cco". The classification of stemmed leaf tobacco as "partia lly manufactured toba cco" was the rationale why petitioner was assessed pursuant to Sec 144 of the NIRC of 1997. The validity of Revenue Regulations No. 17-67 ha s been upheld by the Supreme Court in Campania General de Taba cos de Filipinos vs. Court of Appealsls and Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory, lnc.l9 We quote this Court's former Second Division: "Petitioner's contention that the classification of 'stemmed leaf tobacco' as "partially manufactured tobacco" is improper since Revenue Regulations No. 17-67 is on administrative legislation in a prohibited sense is untenable. This issue is not novel, as said issue hod already been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Campania General de Tobocos de Filipinos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147361 , March 23,2004, 426 SCRA 210, and reiterated in the subsequent case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory, Inc. , G.R, No. 139803, September 2, 2005, 469 SCRA 346. In the case of Campania General de Tobocos de Filipinos vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled: 'Petitioner's arguments impugning the validity of Revenue Regulations Nos. V-39 and 17- 67 deserve scant consideration. First, both regulations were issued pursuant to Sec tion 245 (now 244) of the Tax Code. The authority of the Secretory of Finance, in conjunction with the 18 Supra. Note 10 19 Supra. No te 11 136 5

Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and Redrying Corporation Page 9 of 15 vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue CTA EB Case No. 566 (CTA Case No. 7377) DE C ISION Commissioner of Internal Revenue, to promulgate needful rules and regulations for the effective enforcement of the internal revenue lows cannot be controverted. Such rules and regulations, os well os administrative op1n1ons and rulings, ordinarily deserve to be given weight and respect by the courts. Second, our scrutiny of Revenue Regulations Nos. V-39 and 17-67 clearly shows that said regulations did not modify or deviate from the text of Section 137 (now 140) and 141 (now 144) but merely implemented and clarified said two provisions by providing certain conditions under which stemmed leaf tobacco may be exempted from prepayment of taxes.' Clearly, to be exempted from the payment of tax under Sec 140 and 144 of the Tax Code, the taxpayer must comply with the rules and regulations , as well as the administrative opinions and rulings set forth by the Secretary of Finance, in conjun c tion with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, among others, Revenue Regulations No. 17-67, which the Supreme Court held to be valid. In relation to Section 144 of the Ta x Code, there is no basis as to petitioner's claim of exemption under Section 140 of the Tax Code on grounds of the claim of inapplicab ility of the La Campana Case and the contention that petitioner, being merely a tobacco dealer and not a manufacturer exempts it from liability. L 136 G

Philippine To bacco Flu e-C uring and Re drying Corp o rati o n Page 10 of 15 vs . Commis sio ne r of Internal Revenu e CTA EB Case No. 566 (C TA Case No. 7377) DE C ISION Admittedly , petitioner is an L-6 permittee2o_ defined in Revenue Regulations No. 17-97, as follows: "(g) L-6 - Wholesale leaf tobacco dealers w ho, exclusively for export, except as otherwise provided for in these regulations perform the following functions : (1) Handstripped and/or thresh whole leaf tobac c o for themsel ves or for other L-6 or L- 7 permittees; (2) Re-process partially manufactured tobac c o for themselves, or for other L-6 or L-7 permittees; (3) Sell their partially manufactured tobacco to other L-6 permittees;" Based on the aforesaid definition, petitioner as an L-6 permittee, is considered a "manufacturer" , as it handstripped and/or thresh whole leaf tobacco, re-process partially manufactured tobacco and sell their partially manufactured tobacco to other L-6 or L-7 permittees . Pursuant to Section 130(A) (2) , in relation to Section 144 of the NIRC of 1997, an L-6 permittee can be held liable for exc ise tax. We quote with approval this Court's former Second Division: " Considering that under Sec tion 130(A) (2) , the manufacturer or producer of d omestic product is liable to pay the e xc ise ta x before the rem o val from the place of production and the unco ntro verted fa c t that petitio ner is engaged in the " manufac ture or partial manufac ture of to bacco" since it purchased cured leaf tobacco, removed the stems through the 20 Supra . No te 4 ( 136 '7

Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and Redrying Corporati on Page 11 of 15 vs. Commissioner o f Internal Revenue CTA EB Case No . 566 (CTA Case No. 7377 ) DECISION process o f threshing, re-dried the threshed leaf, and then packed the re -dried products into cardboard cases or Hessian bales, clearly shows that it is liable xxx" Further, petitioner, being an L-6 permittee , is not entitled to the exemption of payment of ta x under o f Section 140 of the NIRC of 1997 which requires compliance with the co nditio ns as may be prescribed by the Se c re tary o f Finan ce . We quote: "Section 140. Removal o f Tobacco Products With o ut Prepayment o f Ta x.- Products of tobacco entirely unfit for chewing or smoking may be remo ved free of tax for agricultural or industrial use, under such co nditions as ma y be prescribed in the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Finance . Stemmed leaf tobacco, fine-cu t short, the refuse of fine -cut c he wing tobacco, scraps, cu ttings, clippings, stems or mid-ribs, and sweepings of tobacco may be sold in bulk as row material by one manufacturer directly to another wi th ou t payment o f th e tax, under suc h conditions as prescribed in the rules and regulations prescribed by th e Secretary o f Finance. xxx. " The interpretation of the abovementioned p rovision was expounded in the La Campana Case which was the basis o f clarification in the Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No . 18-200221. The Supreme Court held that: " 'Stemmed leaf tobacco ,' as herein used means leaf toba cco which has had the stem or mid-rib remo ve d . The term does not include broken leaf tobacco.' 21 Interpretation o f the p e rtinen t provisio ns of Se c ti o n 140 o f the National Int ernal Re venue Code o f 1997 by the Supreme Court of th e Philippines in G .R. No. 145275. ( 136 8

Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and Redrying Corpora tion Page 12 of 15 vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue CTA EB Case No. 566 (CTA Case No . 7377) DECISION Thus , the conditions under which stemmed leaf tobacco may be transferred from one factory to another without prepayment of specific tax are as follows: (a) The transfer shall be under an official L-7 invoice on which shall be entered the exact weight of the tobacco at the time of its removal. (b) Entry shall be made in the L-7 register in the place provided on the page removals. (c) Corresponding debit entry shall be made in the L-7 register book of the factory receiving the tobacco under the heading "Refuse, etc., received from the other factory," showing the date of receipt, assessment and invoice numbers, name and address of the consignor, form in which received, and the weight of the tobacco. XXX XXX XXX Thus , under Sec. 3(h) of Revenue Regulations No . 17-67, L- 7 refers to "Manufacturers of tobacco products." Hence, the transferor of the stemmed leaf tobacco must be an L-7 tobacco manufacturer. This is so because obviously only an L-7 tobacco manufacturer has an official L-7 invoice and an L-7 register and the transferee of the stemmed leaf tobacco must also be an L-7 tobacco manufacturer because , to repeat, only an L-7 tobac co manufacturer has an L-7 registry book. XXX XXX XXX We agree with the petitioner that the exemption from specific ta x of the sale of stemmed leaf tobacco as raw material by one L-7 directly to another L-7 is because such stemmed leaf tobacco has been subjected to specific tax when an L-7 manufacturer purchased the same from wholesale leaf tobacco dealers designated under Section 3, Chapter I, Revenue Regulations No. 17-67 (supra) as L-3, L-3F, L-3R, L-4, or L- 6, the latter being also a stripper of leaf tobacco. These are the sources of stemmed leaf toba cco to be used as row materials by on L-7 manufacturer which does not produce stemmed leaf tobac co . When on L-7 manufacturer sells the stemmed leaf toba cco purchased from the foregoing suppliers to another L-7 manufa c turer as row material, such sale is not subject to specific ta x under Section 137 (now Section 140). as implemented by Section 20(o) of Revenue Regulations No. V-39. Consequently, respondent's purchases of stemmed leaf tobacco were not exempt from specific tax." l 136 9

Philippine Toba cco Flue-Curing and Redrying Corpora ti on Page 13 o f 15 vs. Co mmissioner o f Internal Revenue CTA EB Case No. 566 (C TA Case No. 7377) DE C ISI O N Accordingly, a taxpaye r is not subject to tax under Section 140 o f the NIR C o f 1997 when an L-7 manufa c turer sells (transferor) the stemmed lea f tobacco to another L- 7 manufacturer (transferee) , because on ly an L-7 permitt ee has an o ffi cia l L-7 invoice and an L-7 register. Petitioner is an L-6 permitee, not an L-7 permittee. There is nothing in th e sa id Supreme Court ru lin g which suggests, even by implica tion, th at an L-6 permittee(transferor) is exempt from th e payment of excise tax. Tax exe mptions are never presumed. 22 It is a se ttled rul e that ta x exempti ons are cons trued stric tissimi juris against the taxpoyer and li bera lly in favor o f the taxing power. He who would seek to be thus privileged must justify it by words too plain to be mistaken and too ca teg orica l to be misinterpreted. 23 Taxes are th e lifeblood of th e nation , th erefore statut es that allow exemp ti ons are cons tru ed stric tl y agai nst th e g rantee and li bera lly in fa vor of the governmenP4 Evidently, petitioner is not exemp t from the payment o f excise tax on stemmed lea f tobacco. In fin e, we find no cogen t reason to reverse the finding s o f this Court's former Second Division. 22 Smart Communications, In c . vs. Ci ty of Dava o, G .R. No. 155491 , Sep tember 16, 2008 23 Sea-Land Service Inc. vs . Court o f Appea ls, e t al. G.R. No. 122605, April 30,200 1 24 Davao Gulf Lumber Corp. vs . Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 11 7359, July 23, 1998, 293SCRA 76, 77. 1 370

Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and Redrying Corpora ti on Page 14 of 15 vs . Commissioner of Internal Revenue CTA EB Case No . 566 (CTA Case No. 7377) DECISION WHEREFORE , the instant Petitio n for Review is hereby DENIED . The Dec ision o f this Court's former Second Di vision in CTA Case No. 737 7, dated August 10, 2009, and its Resolution dated October 30 , 2009, are AFFIRMED . No pronouncement as to cos ts. SO ORDERED. WE CONCUR: ~ N. M~�~ -GnJLc CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice L1#-c~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presidin g Ju sti ce ~~'to c �ad-o.-U""' I P.: � (On Leave) q'uANITO C. C ASTANEDA, JR. LOVELL R. BAUTISTA Associa te Justice Associate Justice E~. UY Associate Justi ce ~~J~~ (_ A- >- ~ OLGA - E-CNR-I-QUEZ Associate Justice /.' /J - - ~ ~;. AM~~. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Ju stice 1371

Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and Redrying Corporation Page 15 of 15 vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue CTA EB Case No. 566 (CTA Case No. 7377) DECISION 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 among th e members of the Court En Bane before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court En Bane. ~ v -~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Justice 137 2