COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JARDINE LLOYD THOMPSON INSURANCE BROKERS, INC. (Consolidated with CTA EB NO. 1369)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY En Bane COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 1177 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8273) Petitioner, -versus- JARDINE LLOYD THOMPSON CTA EB NO. 1369 INSURANCE BROKERS, INC., (CTA Case No. 8273) Respondent. Present: x----------------------------------------x JARDINE LLOYD THOMPSON INSURANCE BROKERS, INC., Petitioners, - versus- DEL ROSARIO, PJ, CASTANEDA, JR., BAUTISTA, UY, CASANOVA, FABON-VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, RINGPIS-LIBAN , and MANAHAN,JL COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. DECISION RINGPIS-LIBAN, J.: /Y"

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273} Before the Court En Bane are consolidated1 Petitions for Review separately filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), petitioner in CTA EB No. 1177 (Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, Inc. v. Jardine Llqyd Thompson Insurance Brokers, Inc.), and by Jardine Lloyd Thompson Insurance Brokers, Inc. Qardine Lloyd), petitioner in CTA EB No. 1369 (Jardine Llqyd Thompson Insurance Brokers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue). In CTA EB No. 1177, petitioner CIR seeks to partially reverse and set aside the Amended Decision dated September 28, 20152 (Assailed Amended Decision) and the Resolution dated March 2, 20163 (Assailed Resolution) promulgated by the Special Second Division insofar as they partially grant Jardine Lloyd's claim for a refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate (TCC) for its excess and unutilized creditable income taxes withheld for calendar year 2008. The CIR prays that another decision be rendered denying the entire claim for refund. In CTA EB No. 1369, on the other hand, petitioner Jardine Lloyd is seeking the modification of the Decision dated February 11, 20154 (Assailed Decision) and the Assailed Amended Decision insofar as it reduced the total amount of creditable withholding taxes (CWT) refund granted to it and praying that another one be rendered requiring the CIR to refund the full amount of P8,879,416.89 representing the duly proven excess and unutilized CWT for calendar year 2008. THE PARTIES The CIR is the duly-appointed Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), vested with authority to, inter alia, decide refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) and other laws administered by the BIR, and holding office at the BIR National Office Building, Dillman, Quezon City. Jardine Lloyd is a domestic corporation duly organized and registered under the laws of the Philippines. It holds office at 25/F Philamlife Tower, 8767, Paseo de Roxas, Makati City. It is primarily engaged in the business of i.nsurance brokerag. e, and as such, receives commission income from various msurance comparues~ 1 CTA EB 1369 was consolidated with CTA EB 1177, the case bearing the lowest docket number per Minute Resolution issued on November 24, 2015. 2 Rollo, CTA EB 1369, pp. 149-158. 3 ld., pp. 159-168. 4 /d., pp. 25-48.

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273} Jardine Lloyd is registered with the BIR as shown in its Certificate of Registration bearing RDO Control No. 8RC0000019169, with Tax Identification Number (TIN) 000-125-711-000. It may be served with notices and other process at the office of its counsel, Salvador & Associates, at 8/F Tower One & Exchange Plaza, Ayala Triangle, Ayala Avenue, Makati City. THEFACTS5 On April 15, 2009, Jardine Lloyd6 manually flied with the BIR its Annual Income Tax Return (ITR) for CY 2008, where it reported gross revenues in the total amount of P121,890,522.00, consisting of revenues from commissions, and an income tax due ofP1,394,162.56. Thereafter, on March 29, 2010, Jardine Lloyd ftled with the BIR Large Taxpayers Service (LTS)-Regular Taxpayers its administrative claim for refund of its excess unutilized CWT for CY 2008 in the amount ofP8,880,039.00. The CIR7 failed to decide on Jardine Lloyd's claim for refund of excess and unutilized CWT for CY2008. Consequently, Jardine Lloyd ftled its Petition for Review before this Court on April14, 2011. In the CIR's Answer8, filed on May 24, 2011, he averred the following special and affirmative defenses: "5. [H]e reiterates and re-pleads the preceding paragraphs of this Answer as part of [his] Special and Affirmative Defenses. 6. Petitioner's alleged claim for refund is subject to administrative routinary investigation/ examination by the Bureau. 7. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the tax subject of the case at bar was erroneously or illegally collecte~ 5 The facts of this case were culled from the Decision and the Amended Decision of the Special Second Division in CTA Case No. 8273 dated February 11, 2014 and September 28, 2015, respectively. 6 Petitioner in CTA Case No. 8273. 7 Respondent in CTA Case No. 8273. 8Docket, CTA Case No. 8273, pp. 147-152.

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273} 8. Petitioner must sh<f>w that it has complied with the provisions of Sections 204 (F) and 229 of the Tax Code on the prescriptive period for cl*iming tax refund/ credit. 9. Taxes remitted to' the BIR are presumed to have been made in the regulat course of business and in accordance with provisions df law. 10. Petitioner faile4 to substantiate its claim for refund/issuance of tax credit certificate in the amount of Eight Million Eight Hundr4d Eighty Thousand and Thirty Nine Pesos (P8,880,039.00)f representing alleged unutilized creditable withholding tax fo~ the taxable year 2008. 11. In the case entitl<.jd 'Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Rosemarie Acosta', the Supkeme Court had the occasion to say: 'xxx Noteworthy, the:requirements under Section 230 (now Section 204) for refun~ claims are as follows: 1. A written claim f<Pr refund or tax credit must be flied by the taxpayfr with the Commissioner; 2. The claim for refu~d must be a categorical demand for reimliursement;' 3. The claim for refu(nd or tax credit must be flied, or the suit or proceeding therefor must be commenced in colurt within two (2) years from date of paym~nt of the tax or penalty regardless of any! supervening cause. In our view, t~e law is clear. A claimant must first flle a written! claim for refund, categorically demanding recotery of overpaid taxes with the CIR, before reso~ting to an action in court. This obviously is intenfled, first, to afford the CIR an opportunity toj correct the action of subordinate offi~ers: and second, to notify the government that ~uch taxes have been questioned, and the notice sHould then be borne in mind in estimating the rev~nue available for expenditure xxx.' (emphasis and undbrscoring supplied~

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273} 12. In order to be enbtled to the refund being sought, petitioner must satisfactorlly comply with the following requisites: a.) That the claim !for refund was flied within the two-year pres�riptive period as provided under Section 204 (c) in relation to Section 229 of the NIRC df 1997; b.) That the fact o1f withholding is established by a copy of a st~tement duly issued by the payor (withholdi$g agent) to the payee, showing the amo1fnt paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom; and i c.) That the inco~e upon which the taxes were withheld wa$ included in the return of the recipient. 13. Petitioner must prove that the administrative and I judicial claims were filed witljlln the period prescribed by law. 14. Petitioner must wrove that it has fully complied with the requirements of R~venue Memorandum Order No. 53-98, for purposes of ~ubmission of the supporting documents, otherwise, there would be no sufficient compliance with regard to! the filing of an administrative claim for tax credit/refund, !which is a condition sine qua non prior to the filing of judicial tlaim; 15. In an action for rqfund, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to establish it$ right to refund, and failure to sustain the burden is fatal toj the claim for refund. 16. Claims for refund !are construed strictly against the claimant for the same partalice the nature of exemption from taxation. 17. Basic is the rule th~t tax refunds are regarded as tax exemptions that are in dero~ation of sovereign authority and are to be construed in strictp.ssimi juris against the person or entity claiming the exemptlion (Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer /V'

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 {CTA Case No. 8473} Corporation v. Commissioner of~nternal Revenue, G. R No. 141973, I June 28, 2005). The law d<j>es not look with favor on tax exemption and that he who iwould seek to be thus privileged must justify it by words tao plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpr�ted (Sea Land Service Vs. Court of Appeals, 357 SCRA 444).1 " On July 22, 2011, the parties flied their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues.9 During trial, Jardine Lloyd 8resented the following witnesses: 1) Ms. Ma. Milagros F. PadernaP0, Independ~nt Certified Public Accountant (ICPA) and Ms. Maria Esperanza Rosario R. Dellosa1\ petitioner's Assistant Vice-President (AVP). Thereafter, Jardine Lloyd fll~d its Formal Offer of Evidence12 (FOE) on August 6, 2012. A Comment (On Petitioner's Formal Offer of Evidence)13 was flied by the CIR on August 17, 2012. In a Resolution14 promulgated on September 19, 2012, the Court resolved Jardine Lloyd's FOE and I admitted Exhibits "A" to "1 ", "K", and "R" to "XX", inclusive of their sub-markings. In the November 14, 2012:hearing15, the CIR's counsel manifested the instant case has no report of in~estigation and that he has no witness to present. Thus, upon motion of ~e parties' counsels, the Court in Division ordered them to flle their respectitve Memoranda within thirty (30) days from November 14, 2012 or until Decerpber 14, 2012. On February 14, 2013, tH.e Court in Division considered the case submitted16 for decision taking iqto consideration the CIR's Memorandum17 flied on December 4, 2012 and JarUine Lloyd's Memorandum18 flied on January 28,2013/ 9 /d., pp. 175-178. 10 ld., pp. 233 and 260; Minutes of the Hearingldated October 12, 2011 and Minutes of the Hearing dated March 5, 2012, respectively. 11 ld., pp. 233, 242, 1267, and 268; Minutes odhe Hearing dated October 12, 2011; Minutes of the Hearing dated December 12, 2011; Minutes oflthe Hearing dated April 23, 2012; and, Minutes of the Hearing dated May 28, 2012, respectively. 12 /d., pp. 286-306. 13 /d., pp. 311-314. 14 /d., pp. 319-320. 15 /d., p. 324. 16 /d., p. 385, Resolution dated February 14, 2013. 17 /d., pp. 325-335. . 18 /d., pp. 366-382.

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273) On February 11, 2014, the Court in Division promulgated the Assailed Decision, the dispositive portion o{ which reads, as follows: "WHEREFORE, ~remises considered, the instant Petition for Review is heteby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ORDERED TO REFUND or TO ~SSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner in the reduced amount of P3,569,915.23, representi~g petitioner's excess and unutilized creditable income taxes withheld for calendar year 2008. SO ORDERED." Both parties sought to havf the Assailed Decision reconsidered. The CIR flied its Motion for Partial R~consideration19 on February 28, 2014 while Jardine Lloyd likewise filed its Mk>tion for Reconsideration (with Motion to Reopen Trial of the Case and Reqpest for Leave to Submit Details of General Ledgers)20 on February 28, 2014. In a Resolution21 dated Apr'l 30, 2014, the Court in Division denied the CIR's Motion for Partial Reconsiqleration and affirmed its Decision granting Jardine Lloyd's refund of excess aqd unutilized CWT in the reduced amount of P3,569,915.23. In that same Resolujtion,Jardine Lloyd's Motion to Reopen Trial of the Case and Request for Leave to Submit Details of General Ledgers was also granted. On May 22, 2014, the CIR flied his Petition for Review22 with the Court En Bane. On June 23, 2014, this C<j>urt issued a Resolution23 ordering Jardine Lloyd to file a Comment on the getition within ten (1 0) days from receipt of the Resolution. Jardine Lloyd flied its Commen~4 to the Petition for Review on July 10, 2014. On July 30, 2014, this Courlt issued a Resolution25 ordering both parties to flle their respective Memoranda within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the Resolution/ 19 /d., pp. 418-432. 20 /d., pp. 435-446, by registered mail which the Court received on March 7, 2014. 21 /d., pp. 470-478. 22 Rollo, CTA EB No. 1177, pp. 1-24. 23 ld., pp. 62-63. 24 /d., pp. 64-73. 25 /d., pp., 75-76.

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273} In a Manifestation26 flled on) September 2, 2014 by the CIR, he indicated that he was adopting the argumetjlts raised in the Petition for Review as his Memorandum. Jardine Lloyd, on ~e other hand, flied a Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum27 o~ September 5, 2014 which was granted in a Minute Resolution28 by this Court/ on September 8, 2014. Jardine Lloyd was thereafter given a final and non-E!xtendible period of twenty (20) days from September 6, 2014 or until September 26, 2014, within which to flle its Memorandum. On September 26, 2014, J4rdine Lloyd posted its Memorandum29 via registered mail which the Court reqeived on October 1, 2014. In a Resolution30 dated November 13, 2014, the casd was deemed submitted for decision. On August 13, 2015, the C1=ourt En Bane recalled its earlier resolution submitting the CIR's Petition for pecision in view of pending incidents being held in the Court in Division ahd held proceedings in abeyance pending resolution of Jardine Lloyd's mcbtion for reconsideration of the Assailed Decision. 31 Meanwhile, proceedings in i the Court in Division continued. Jardine Lloyd's Assistant Vice-President, 1Maria Esperanza Rosario R. Dellosa, was recalled to the witness stand.32 ' She identified her Supplemental Sworn Statement as Exhibit "CCCCC", lier signature on page 14 thereof, as Exhibit "CCCCC-1 ",and additional documentary evidence.33 On May 11, 2015, the Cqurt in Division admitted Jardine Lloyd's exhibits enumerated in its Suppleniental Offer of Evidence flled on January 5, 2015.34 After Jardine Lloyd flled i* Memorandum on June 25, 2015, sans the CIR's Memorandum, Jardine Lloid's Motion for Reconsideration was then submitted for resolution on June 3~, 2015. On September 28, 2015, th~ Assailed Amended Decision35 was rendered by the Court in Division, the dispositive portion of which reads as follow~ 26 /d., pp. 77-80. 27 ld., pp. 81-84. 28 /d., pp. 85-86. 29 /d., pp. 103-116. 30 /d., pp. 120-121. 31 /d., pp. 123-124. I 32 ld. at Note 8, p. 702, Minutes of the Hearing !dated October 20, 2014. 33 /d., pp. 687-701, Supplemental Sworn State~ent of Ms. Maria Esperanza Rosario R. Dellosa to Questions Propounded by Atty. Reizel Ann A. lianchico. 34 ld., p. 752, Resolution dated May 11, 2015. 35 /d. at Note 2.

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273} "WHEREFORE, pdtitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANtED. Accordingly, the dispositive portion of the assailed Decis~on dated February 11, 2014 is hereby amended to read, as follows: � 'WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for R~view is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. 1 respondent is hereby Accoingly, ORDERED TO FUND or TO ISSUE A TAX CREDIT C RTIFICATE in favor of petitioner in the r~duced amount of THREE MILLION SEVE1N" HUNDRED NINETY ONE THOUS~D FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY NINFf PESOS and 65/100 (P3,791,529.65), repr~senting petitioner's excess and unutilized creditable income taxes withheld for calendar year 2008. SO ORDERJtD."' On October 21, 2015, the CJR filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Assailed Amended Decision$6 with the Court in Division. On October 22, 2015, Jard(ine Lloyd filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review-17. iThis was granted via Minute Resolution38 on October 28, 2015 giving Jardine ~loyd a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from October 22, 2015 or until November 6, 2015 within which to file its Petition for Review. On November 12, 2015, th~ Court received Jardine Lloyd's Petition for Review-19 posted on November 6, ~015. On November 14, 2015, CFA EB No. 1369 was consolidated with CTA EB No. 1177, the case bearing the lower docket number via Minute Resolution40� On March 2, 2016, the Cotj.rt in Division issued a Resolution41 denying the CIR's motion for partial reconslideratio/v' 36 /d., pp.780-792. 37 Rollo, CTA EB No. 1369, pp. 1-5. 38 /d., p. 6. 39 /d., pp. 7-67. 40 /d. at Note 1. 41 Rollo, CTA EB No. 1177, pp. 159-168.

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273} On March 21, 2016, the CIR filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Supplement to the Petition for ~eview42 with attached Supplement to the Petition for Review43 which the C<!>urt En Bane granted in a Resolution44 dated May 19, 2016. In that same Resqlution, the Supplement to the Petition was admitted into the record. On July 7, 2016, the CIR filed his Comment (Re: Petition for Review) 45 in CTA EB No. 1369. On July 8, 2016, Jardine J+loyd flied a Motion for Extension to File Comment46 to the CIR's Supplem_ent to the Petition for Review. This was granted by the Court via Minute! Resolution dated July 13, 201647 in which Jardine Lloyd was given an extension of twenty (20) days from July 10, 2016 or until July 30, 2016 within which to !file its Comment. On August 2, 2016, Jardine Lloyd flied a Manifestation48 stating that it served its Comment (Re: Supplement to the Petition for Review) via registered mail. The Court noted this via Miqute Resolution on August 5, 201649. On August 10, 2016, the Cpurt received Jardine Lloyd's Comment (Re: Supplement to the Petition for Reviiew) which was posted on August 1, 2016.50 In a Resolution51 dated Sep~ember 21, 2016, both parties were ordered to submit their Memoranda withirj. a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from notice. On October 5, 2016, the C~R filed a Manifestation52 that he is adopting the arguments he raised in the S~pplement to the Petition for Review as his Memorandum. This was noted by the Court via Minute Resolution on October 10,2016~ . 42 /d., pp. 127-132. 43 /d., pp. 133-148. 44 /d., pp. 173-175. 45 /d., pp. 176-182. 46 ld., pp. 183-187. 47 /d., p. 188. 48 /d., pp. 189-202 49 /d., pp. 203-204. 50 ld., pp. 205-214. 51 /d., pp. 217-218. 52 /d., pp. 219-222. 53 ld., p. 223.

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273} On November 4, 2016, J*dine Lloyd filed a Manifestation54 that it served its Memorandum via regis~ered mail on November 2, 2016 which the Court noted via Minute Resolutiqn55 on November 8, 2016. Jardine Lloyd's Memorandum56 filed by post was r~ceived by the Court on November 9, 2016. In a Resolution57 dated Dec~mber 13, 2016, the consolidated cases were submitted for decision. THE ASSIG*MENTS OF ERROR The CIR, in his assignment! of errors, raises two -- a) that the Court in Division erred in partially granting !respondent's claim for refund in the amount of P3,569,915.23 allegedly represe4ting excess and unutilized creditable income taxes withheld for calendar year 2008; and b) that the Court in Division erred in allowing Jardine Lloyd to present ievidence after a Decision had already been rendered. Jardine Lloyd, on the other hand, raises a single assignment of error - that the Court in Division erred iq partially denying a substantial portion of its claim for refund of excess CWT f~r CY 2008 in the Amended Decision which must be corrected by this Court hy ordering a full refund in the amount of P8,879,416.89. THE ARGUMEJNTS OF THE PARTIES The CIR argues that sine~ a tax refund is in the nature of a tax exemption which must be constru�d strictissimijuris against the taxpayer, Jardine Lloyd must present convincing e~dence to substantiate a claim for refund. However, since it failed to present its Original Quarterly Income Tax Returns (ITRs) during trial with the Court {n Division, and only presented its Amended Quarterly ITRs and Annual ITR for 2008, Jardine Lloyd has failed to substantiate its claim for refund. The CIR claims that the ~pplication of the "Irrevocability Rule" in Section 76 of the NIRC requires tliat a taxpayer prove that it did not carry-over to the succeeding year the amount claimed for refund, and for that fact to be established, Jardine Lloyd needed ~o present its original quarterly ITRs where it presumably indicated its option to tarry-over or to refund.~ 54 ld., pp. 224-230. 55 ld., p. 231. 56 ld., pp. 232-262. 57 /d., pp. 265-266.

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273} Section 76 of the 1997 Tax <Code states: "SEC. 76. Final : Adjustment Retum. Every corporation liable to tax t-Inder Section 27 shall flle a final adjustment return covering the total taxable income for the preceding calendar or fiscal ;year. If the sum of the quarterly tax payments made during the isaid taxable year is not equal to the total tax due on the entir~ taxable income of that year, the corporation shall either: (A) Pay the balance of tax still due; or (B) Carry-over the ex�ess credit; or (C) Be credited or refunded with the excess amount paid, as the case may be. In case the corporatiqn is entitled to a tax credit or refund of the excess estimated qu~rterly income taxes paid, the excess amount shown on its final apjustment return may be carried over and credited against the estitmated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of! the succeeding taxable years. Once the option to carry-over! and apply the excess quarterly income tax against incotJi.e tax due for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable !years has been made, such option shall be considered irrev~cable for that taxable period and no application for cash tFfund or issuance of a tax credit certificate shall be allowe4 therefor." (Emphasis supplied) The CIR takes issue witlJ! the cited cases supporting the Assailed Decision, i.e., Philam Asset Manage~ent, Inc. vs. CIR58 (The Philam Case), arguing that the consolidated cases invol~d interpretations of Section 69 of the old code and Section 76 of the new cqde, and that prior to the Irrevocability Rule, there existed no legal reason to ttequire the succeeding year's ITRs; CIR vs. Philippine Realty and Holdings Corpor~tio~9; Stateland Investment Corporation vs. CIR60; and, CIR vs. Philippine Realty and Holdings Corporatio~1 � Similarly, the CIR also disa~rees with Court in Division's holding that Section 76 does not state that ~he succeeding year's returns need to be presented in a claim for refund, ci~ng Sheil Series International Sendirian Berhad vs. CIR62 which held that burden to piove that the taxpayer claimant did not carry twr over or utilize the claimed excess belongs to the taxpayer claimant; CI~ 58 G.R. Nos. 156637 & 162004, December 14, 2p05. 59 557 SCRA 165, G.R. No. 163345, July 4, 2008. 60 G.R. No. 171956, January 18, 2008. 61 CTA EB No. 897, July 29, 2013. 62 CTA EB No. 196, June 13, 2007.

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8473} vs. Bank ofthe Philippine Island13 w~ch held that the second option in Section 76 works by applying the refundable ~mount on the FAR of a given taxable year against the estimated quarterly incpme tax liabilities of the succeeding taxable year; and, Citibank N.A. vs. CA a~d CIR64 which held that before a claim for refund is sustained, the fact of withholding should be established by showing Withholding Tax Certificates. In its Supplement to the Petition for Revie~5, the CIR additionally argues that the Court in Divisio* should not have granted Jardine Lloyd's motion to reopen trial and sub~t details of the general ledgers as the documents presented were neither! newly discovered nor inadvertently omitted due to fraud, accident, mistake or epccusable negligence. The CIR avers that the ad4itional evidence Jardine Lloyd presented in the re-opened trial is forgotten ev{dence which it could have offered with the exercise of ordinary diligence. Unfer Section 1, Rule 37 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, this does not merit a neiw trial. On the other hand, Jardine !Lloyd argues that submission of tax returns for the subsequent years is unnece$sary because the Supreme Court has already decreed that the submission of IT~s for the succeeding period as a requirement for the refund of excess CWT has ino basis in law citing the Philam, State/and & PERF cases in the Assailed Decisiqn. Furthermore, in CJR v. Mirant (Philippines) Operations, Corporation66, the Supreme Court granted the claimj for refund without the submission of the original income tax return of thei subsequent year upon a showing that the I claimant opted to refund its exces$ CWT and has complied with the following legal requisites, thus: 1) That the claim for refund was flied within the two- 1 year prescriptive period prFscribed under Section 204 (C), in relation to Section 229 of fue National Internal Revenue Code I (NIRC) of 1997, as amended; 2) That the fact of withholding is established by a copy of a statement duly issued bi the payor (withholding agent) to the payee (BIR Form No. 1743~A [now BIR Form 2307]), showing the amount paid and the ambunt of tax withheld therefrom; an~ 63 G.R. No. 178490, July 7, 2009. 64 G.R. No. 107434, October 10, 1997. 65 ld. at Note 42. 66 CTA EB 861.

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 {CTA Case No. 8~73} 3) The income ~on which the taxes were withheld were included in the return d>f the recipient. Jardine Lloyd is adamant t~at the evidence on the record, particularly Exhibits "D"67 and "E-9"68 in the case a quo, shows that it marked the appropriate box of its income taxi returns indicating its option to refund the excess and unutilized CWT. More~ver, there is nothing in the Phi/am Case that supports the CIR's view that the I presentation of original quarterly ITRs are required in claiming the refund of �xcess and unutilized CWT. Jardine Lloyd argues that ptoof of submission to the BIR of the CWT Certificates is not necessary forth~ grant of refund of excess CWT; and points out that the CIR raises the issue bf whether or not it has sufficiently proven that it submitted to the BIR its :CWT Certificates supporting its claim for refund for CY 2008 when it filedi its administrative claim for refund the first time on appeal. In its own Petition for Review, Jardine Lloyd argues that it has established, by preponderance of evidence, that the income from which its excess CWT credits for CY 2008 were withheld was recorded and reported as part of its gross income in its Atinual ITR. It has submitted in evidence its Billing Statements, Daily Premiu~ Entries, Production Reports, Trial Balance, and General Ledgers (GLs) for CY 2007, 2008, and 200969 which, viewed collectively, prove that its income ~rom which CWT credits were withheld was properly reported in the same perid>d. Jardine Lloyd also claims !that due to its practice of recording and reporting its income, there can ne']"er be an instance where the income covered by the CWT was not reported as part of the gross income in the Annual ITR. Furthermore, the discrepancies i between the amounts appearing in its Production Reports and GL ~ave been reconciled and explained by Ms. Dellosa who testified on the ipcome-reporting procedure of Jardine Lloyd and that the income payments sup~orted by CWT certificates were reported in its Annual ITR for CY 2008. Jardine Lloyd claims that the Assailed Amended Decision shows that only selected CWT Certificates wdre examined vis-a-vis the Billing Statements, cw;:.v- Daily Premium Entries Generatiorjl Report, Production Reports, Trial Balance, and GLs.70 It argues that had the Court in Division traced all the 67 Respondent's manually filed 2008 Annual IT~. 68 Respondent's electronically filed 2008 Annu~l ITR. 69 Exhibits "YY" to "AAAAA". 70 The CWT Certificates bearing the following ~arkings were not included in the table: Exhibits "KK-2", "KK-5", "KK-7", "KK-9", "KK-10", "KK-11", "KK-112", "KK-14" to "KK-18", "KK-20" to "KK-23", "KK-25" to "KK- 27", "KK-29", "KK-30", "KK-33", "KK-35" to "KKt39", "KK-41", "KK-42", "KK-44", "KK-55", "KK-58", "KK-61"

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273} Certificates that were admitted into evidence and exhaustively examined and compared them with the Billing St~tements, Daily Premium Entries Generation Report, Production Reports and QLs, it would have been able to trace Jardine Lloyd's CWT credits for CY 2008 t~ these documents. As for the finding of the Coprt in Division that not all amounts found in the additional supporting documrnts are equal to the amount of income payments shown in the CWT 4ertificates, Jardine Lloyd argues that the discrepancies between the gross in4ome shown in the CWT Certificates and the gross income reported in the An*ual ITR for CY 2008 do not mean that it failed to report the income reflec~ed in the CWT Certificates. It avers that these discrepancies are inevitable !because of timing differences of reporting gross income under the accrual biis of accounting pursuant to Section 44 of the NIRC and the time of withh lding taxes under RR No. 2-98. What is important is that upon receipt of he CWT Certificate, the related income was already recognized in the books, }vhether in the current year or in the prior year. Since Jardine Lloyd's practicF is to wait for proof of withholding before claiming a tax credit in its tax retutn, the government is not prejudiced. More importandy, it has then been able Ito prove that the full amount being claimed for refund can be traced to its Annual ITRs for CY 2008 and in the previous years. THE RULI~G OF THE COURT Prior to delving into the rberits of the consolidated cases at bar, the I Court En Bane shall first ascertain lif its jurisdiction has been correcdy invoked by both parties. Jurisdiction ofthe Court On October 7, 2015, the CJR received the Assailed Amended Decision partially granting the motion for gartial reconsideration of Jardine Lloyd. On October 21, 2015, within the pdiod of appeal, the CIR flied a motion for partial reconsideration. On Mar~h 7, 2016, the CIR received a Resolution promulgated March 2, 2016 denyi4g his motion. The CIR, therefore, had until March 22, 2016 within which to f~e the petition for review. As the Motion for Leave of Court to File Supplemen~ to the Petition for Review together with the Supplement to the Petition for Re}riew was flied on March 21, 2016, the CIR's Petition was timely flied~ to "KK-63", "KK-65", "KK-66", "KK-68" to "KK-7~", "KK-80" to "KK-82", "KK-86" to "KK-92", "KK-95", "KK- 97", "KK-100" to "KK-111", "KK-115" to "KK-11?", "KK-120", "KK-123", "KK-124", "KK-126" to "KK-128", "KK-131" to "KK-138", "KK-140", "KK-142" to "~K-159", "KK-163", "KK-164", "KK-166", "KK-169" to "KK- 183", "KK-184" to "KK-187", "KK-189", "KK-1921", "KK-193", "KK-195", "KK-196", "KK-198", "KK-203" to "KK- 2012".

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8~73} Jardine Lloyd also received ~ copy of the Assailed Amended Decision on October 7, 2015 which partially ranted its motion for reconsideration and increased the refundable amount tp P3,791,529.65. Jardine Lloyd did not seek reconsideration of the Assailed Amended Decision, but instead counted a period of fifteen (15) days in acc~rdance with Section 3(b), Rule 8, Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appea~s (RRCTA?1 within which to file an appeal with the Court En Bane. Based o~ Jardine Lloyd's reckoning of the period to appeal, it had until October 22, 20Q 5 within which to file a Petition for Review with the Court En Bane. � On October 22, 2015, Jardi~e Lloyd filed a motion for extension of time to file its Petition praying for an a4ditional fifteen (15) days or until November 6, 2015 which the Court En Bane ~ranted, as recounted above. As its Petition for Review was posted on Novetjnber 6, 2015 which the Court received on November 12, 2015, the Petition '*as also timely filed, based on Jardine Lloyd's reckoning of the period to appeal. � However, this Court is not li:tnaware of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Asiatrust Development Bank, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue72 which emphasized that ian appeal to the CTA En Bane must be preceded by the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial with the CTA Division. The Supreme qourt further held that this requirement is not disposed of in the case of an Amertded Decision. In Asiatrust, the Supreme Cqurt made the following disquisition: "Section 1, Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the CTA states: SECTION 1. *-eview ofcases in the Court en bane. - In cases falling 4nder the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Cpurt en bane, the petition for review of a decision ior resolution of the Court in I Division must be pr~ceded by the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial with the Division. Thus, in order forth~ CTA En Bane to take cognizance of an appeal via a petition: for review, a timely motion for reconsideration or new tri~l must first be filed with the CTA Division that issued the ass~ed decision or resolution. Failure to I do so is a ground for the ;dismissal of the appeal as the wor~ 71 A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA, November 22, 2005~ 72 G.R. Nos. 201530 & 201680-81, April19, 201)7.

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 {CTA Case No. 8273} "must" indicates that the f~ng of a prior motion is mandatory, and not merely directory.73 ' The same is true i~ the case of an amended decision. Section 3, Rule 14 of the same rules defines an amended decision as "[a]ny action modifying qr reversing a decision of the Court en bane or in Division." As efplained in CE Luzon Geothermal Power Company, Inc. ! v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue/4 an amended ~ecision is a different decision, and thus, is a proper subject or a motion for reconsideration. In this case, the CIR'f failure to move for a reconsideration of the Amended Decision pf the CTA Division is a ground for the dismissal of its Petition I for Review before the CTA En Bane. Thus, the CTA En Bane did hot err in denying the CIR's appeal on procedural grounds. Due to this procedural lapse, the Amended Decision has attained finality insofar as the CIR is concerned. The CIR, therefore, may no longer q~estion the merits of the case before this Court. Accordingly, tl!lere is no reason for the Court to discuss the other issues rais~d by the CIR." ' As recounted in the early part of this Decision, both parties moved to reconsider the Assailed Decision. ! When the Assailed Amended Decision was rendered, the CIR sought reconsi~eration thereof while Jardine Lloyd directly flled its Petition with the Co~t En Bane without filing a motion for reconsideration of the Assailed Jlmended Decision. Under Asiatrust, Jardine Lloyd's Petition ought to be dismislsed outright. A perusal of Asiatrust revea~s that prior to the issuance of the Amended Decision, the court set a hearing !for the presentation of the originals of the documents attached to Asiatrust'~ motion for reconsideration, documentary exhibits were presented and marke~, a witness was recalled, and a supplemental formal offer of evidence was filed.i Otherwise stated, a formal hearing was held which became the foundation of tlie Amended Decision in Asiatrtut. Therefore, it was only proper that the CIR in 'Asiatrust file a motion for reconsideration to the Amended Decision as to the fip.dings made by the Court in Division during the hearing. The same situation as in )Jsiatrust obtains in this case. The Assailed Amended Decision was a conseq~ence of having the trial reopened to receiv~ 73 Commissioner of Customs v. Marina Sales, lnlc., 650 Phil. 143, 151-152 (2010). 74 G.R Nos. 200841-42, August 26, 2015, 768 54RA 269, 275.

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 {CTA Case No. 8273} additional evidence. Jardine Llord made the fatal flaw of not seeking reconsideration of the Assailed Ai;nended Decision as mandated by Asiatrust. Perforce, its Petition for Review rrh.ust be dismissed as this Court's jurisdiction has been incorrectly invoked. Th~ Assailed Amended Decision, therefore, has attained finality insofar as Jardine l}loyd is concerned and there is no longer any need to discuss any issues it has rai~ed before the Court En Bane. Motion to Reopen Case was 1 Properly Within the Discretion of the Court in Division After considering the arguntents of both the CIR and Jardine Lloyd on the matter, this Court is convinceld that the Court in Division did not err in allowing Jardine Lloyd to present I evidence even after a decision had already been rendered. � A motion to reopen a case to receive further proofs was not in the old rules but it was nonetheless a reco~zed procedural recourse, deriving validity and acceptance from long, establisped usage.75 Generally, after the parties have produced their respective direct ~roofs, they are allowed to offer rebutting evidence only. However, the court, for good reasons, in the furtherance of justice, may allow new evidence ~pon their original case, and its ruling will not be disturbed in the appell~te court where no abuse of discretion appears.76 A motion to reopen f11ay thus properly be presented only after either or both parties had form~lly offered and closed their evidence, but before judgment is rendered,77 ahd even after promulgation but before finality of judgment18 and the I only controlling guideline governing a motion to reopen is the paramiount interest of justice.79 This remedy of reopening a case was meant to pretent a miscarriage of justice. As can be gleaned from ab?ve, a motion to reopen may be resorted to even after a judgment has been p~omulgated provided it has not yet attained finality and the only controlling g4ideline governing a motion to reopen is the paramount interest of justice. Fudher, considering that the proceedings before this Court "shall not be governe~I strictly by technical rules of evidence,"80 it was only apropos for the Court irt Division to grant the motion to reopen s~ 75 Rene Cabarles v. Hon. Judge Bonifacio Sanz iylaceda and People of the Philippines, G.R. no. 161330, February 20, 2007 citing Alegre v. Reyes, No. L156923, May 9, 1988, 161 SCRA 226, 231. 76 /d. citing Gacayan v. Pamintuan, A.M. No. R1J-99-1483 (OCA-IPI No. 98-578-RTJ), September 17, 1999, 314 SCRA 682, 694; People v. Castro-Barto/om�, G.R. No. 45037, November 21, 1991, 204 SCRA 38, 42. 77 /d. citing Alegre v. Reyes, supra note 74; II F.~Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium 551 (lOth ed., 2004), citing People v. Concepcion, 84 Phil. 78 , 788 (1949). 78 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 1 9, Sec. 24; II F. Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, supra. ! 79 People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47, January ~0, 2003, 395 SCRA 419, 444. 80 Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Commissioryer of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 122480, April12, 2000.

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 {CTA Case No. 8273} that substantial justice, equity and fair play would be served. Technicalities and legalisms, however exalted, should! not be misused by the government to keep money not belonging to it and th~reby enrich itself at the expense of its law- abiding citizens. If the State exfects its taxpayers to observe fairness and honesty in paying their taxes, so ml(Ist it apply the same standard against itself in refunding excess payments of sue~ taxes. Indeed, the State must lead by its own example of honor, dignity an~ uprightness. 81 Non-presentation of Original Quarterly ITRs Not Fatal in C~aim For Refund As regards the remaining i~sue presented by the CIR, the crux of the controversy revolves around whether or not Jardine Lloyd's non-presentation of the original quarterly ITRs, despite presenting its amended quarterly ITRs, is fatal in its claim for refund. This issue has already be~n decided in Winebrenner & Inigo Insurance Brokers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Interi!al RevenufP, where the Supreme Court held that the submission and presenta~on of the quarterly ITRs of the succeeding quarters of a taxable year is not in4ispensable in a claim for refund. That case was appealed to ~he Supreme Court when this Court denied Winebrenner's refund in its Marfh 22, 2013 Decision83 where it held that before a cash refund or an issuanc~ of tax credit certificate for unutilized excess tax credits could be granted, it ~as essential for petitioner to establish and prove, by presenting the quarterly tTRs of the succeeding years, that the excess CWT was not carried over to the !succeeding taxable quarters considering that the option to carry over in the I succeeding taxable quarters could not be modified in the final adjustment I returns (FAR). Because petitioner did not present the first, second and third! quarterly ITRs for CY 2004, despite having offered and submitted the Annu~ ITR/FAR for the same year, this Court stated that the petitioner failed to Uischarge its burden, hence, no refund could be granted. In Winebrenner, the SuprernF Court clarified the evidentiary value that should be given to succeeding qu~rterly ITRs in relation to claims for refund and Section 76 of the NIRC, thus~ 81 /bid. 82 G.R. No. 206526, January 28, 2015, with Dis~enting Opinion by Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen. 83 The Decision was met with two dissents fro~ Associate Justices Juanito C. Castaneda and Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino. �

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 82,73} I "Proving that no c~rry-over has been made does not absolutely require the pre~entation of the quarterly ITRs. In Phi/am, the petitioner therein sought for recognition of I its right to the claimed rerund of unutilized CWT. The CIR opposed the claim, on the wounds similar to the case at hand, that no proof was provided ~howing the non-carry over of excess CWT to the subsequent fJ.uarters of the subject year. In a categorical manner, the CoJrt ruled that the presentation of the quarterly ITRs was not necehary. Therein, it was written: 'Requiring that the ITR or the FAR of the succeeding year be . presented to the BIR in requesting a tax refu~d has no basis in law and jurisprudence. First, Section 76 of the Tax Code does not mandate it. The law merely requires the filing of the FAR for the prec~ding - not the succeeding - taxable year. Indee~, any refundable amount I indicated in the FAR !of the preceding taxable year may be credited agai*st the estimated income tax liabilities for the taxaijle quarters of the succeeding I taxable year. Howevfr, nowhere is there even a tinge of a hint in aqy provisions of the [NIRC] that the FAR of th� taxable year following the period to which the t~I x credits are originally being applied should also b� presented to the BIR. I I Second, Section 5 of jRR 12-94, amending Section 10(a) of RR 6-85, mclrely provides that claims for refund of income t4xes deducted and withheld from income paymedts shall be given due course I only (1) when it is $hown on the ITR that the income payment recefved is being declared part of the taxpayer's gross itjlcome; and (2) when the fact of withholding is esjtablished by a copy of the withholding tax sta*ment, duly issued by the payor to the payee, s~owing the amount paid and the income tax withh�ld from that amount.' It has been submittbd that Phi/am cannot be cited as a precedent to hold that the ~resentation of the quarterly income tax return is not indispensa~le as it appears that the quarter!J returns for the succeedingyear were pres~nted when the petitioner therein ftle~�Y'/

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273} an administrative claim for the refund of its excess taxes withheld in 1997. It appears however tPat there is misunderstanding in the ruling of the Court in Phil~m. That factual distinction does not negate the propositiop that subsequent quarterly ITRs are not indispensable. Th9 logic in not requiring quarterly ITRs of the succeeding taxable ytars to be presented remains true to this day. What Section 76 tequires, just like in all civil cases, is to prove the prima facie !entitlement to a claim, including the fact of not having car~ed over the excess credits to the subsequent quarters or t4xable year. It does not say that to prove such a fact, succee~ing quarterly ITRs are absolutely needed. 1 other than indeed the non-car ove clause has been com lied with provided that such is coMpetent, relevant and part of the records. The Court is i thus not prepared to make a pronouncement as to the in4fispensability of the quarterly ITRs in a claim for refund for no c~urt can limit a party to the means of proving a fact for as long a~ they are consistent with the rules of evidence and fair play. Th~[ means of ascertainment of a fact is best left to the party that a4eges the same. The Court's power is limited only to the appreci~tion of that means pursuant to the prevailing rules of evidence.j To stress, what the NIRC merely requires is to sufficient!~ prove the existence of the non- carry over of excess CWT lin a claim for refund. The implementing ~les similarly support this conclusion, particularly Section 2.58.3! of Revenue Regulation No. 2-98 thereof. There, it provides a~ follows: 'SECTION 2.58.3. C~aim for Tax Credit or Refund. I (A) The amount of cjreditable tax withheld shall be allowed as a tax dedit against the income tax liability of the payee! in the quarter of the taxable year in which income! was earned or received. (B) Claims for t~x credit or refund of any creditable income t4x which was deducted and withheld on income I payments shall be given du~

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 {CTA Case No. 82'73) course only when itj 1s shown that the income payment has been dpclared as part of the gross income and the fact !of withholding is established by a copy of the withholding tax statement duly issued by the payer' to the payee showing the amount paid and t~e amount of tax withheld therefrom. XXX ~XX 1 XXX Evident from the ab~ve is the absence of any categorical pronouncement of requirin$ the presentation of the succeeding quarterly ITRs in order to prove the fact of non-carrying over. To say the least, the Court tules that as to the means of proving it, It has no power to undu!J testrict it." (Emphasis supplied) Given the above pronounqement, a review of the record shows that Jardine Lloyd showed sufficient p11oof that it did not carry over and utilize the excess income tax in the succe~ding periods. Jardine Lloyd submitted in evidence its amended quarterly ITR for CY 2009 as Exhibits "FF", "GG", and "HH" (2009 Quarterly ITRs).84 T~e 2009 Quarterly ITRs were identified and I marked by court commissioned1 independent certified public accountant, Ms. Milagros Padernal, in her report dated February 17, 201285 and judicial affidavit dated March 1, 2012.86 � While the CIR takes issue that only amended quarterly ITRs were presented and offered as evidence as opposed to the original quarterly ITRs, Winebrenner dictates that in the fa�e of sufficient evidence, such circumstance will not work to defeat a claim for ~efund. We give full faith and creqence to the findings of fact of the Special Second Division in its Decision, td wit: "A perusal of petitio~er's manually and electronically filed Annual Income Tax Retur* for taxable year 200887 shows that petitioner had total tax credhs of P58,111,621.00 which consisted of the prior year's excess cr�dits in the amount of P49,231,582.00 and creditable taxes withhel~ during the year 2008 in the amount of P8,880,039.00.88 Petitioner's MCIT in the amount o~ 84 Rollo, p. 99. 85 Rollo, p. 95, Exhibit "UU" in Docket. 86 /d., Exhibits "VV" and "VV-1". 87 Rollo, p. 33. 88 /d., P6,900,681.00 plus P1,979,358.00, line~ 28C and 280, Exhibits "D" and "E".

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8~73} P1,394,162.56 was paid usttig a portion of its prior year's excess credits of P49,231,582.00 le~ving the prior year's excess credits in the amount of P47,837,41l9.44 and creditable taxes withheld during the year 2008 in the lamount of P8,880,039.00 totaling to P56,717,458.44 unutilized as of December 31, 2008, as shown below: '- p 1,394,162.56 49,231,582.00 MCIT Less: Prior Years' Excess Credit~ p 47,837,419.44 Balance of Prior Years' Excds Credits 8,880,039.00 Add: CWT for CY 2008 Total P56, 717,458.44 Inasmuch as Uardin~ Lloyd] marked the option 'To be refunded' in its Annual Idcome Tax Return for taxable year 200889 and reflected only t~e amounts of P40,474,717.0090 and P47,837,418.51 91 as 'Prior year's Excess Credits' in its original and amended Annual Income Tax Returns for 2009, respectively, as well as in its Quarterly Income Tax Return for the 1st92, 2nd93 and 3rd94 quarters of 2009, ithe unutilized creditable withholding taxes for taxable year 2008 ~n the amount of P8,880,039 .00 may be the subject of a claim for refund under Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. 1' As such, it is clear that Jard~ne Lloyd did not carry-over its CWf in the total amount ofP8,880,039.00 for t:Y 2008 in CY 2009. Likewise, the record also b~ars testament to the fact that Jardine Lloyd properly marked the option to reflund the excess and unutilized CWf in Line 39 of its 2008 manually and electr~nically filed Annual ITR, marked as Exhibit "D" and Exhibit "E-9" showing t~at it chose the option to refund the excess and unutilized CWf for CY 200~. The CIR's objections on the ground that without the presentation of the atliginal quarterly ITRs, Jardine Lloyd's choice of whether or not to be refunded br to have the amount carried over, is found to be without meri~ 89/d. 90 ld., amount carried over is lower by P7,362,t02.44, Line 28A, Exhibit "I" (original Annual Income Tax Return). 91 /d., amount carried over is lower by 0.93, Lirie 30A, Exhibit "K" (amended 2009 Annual Income Tax Return). 92 ld., Exhibit "FF". 93 ld., Exhibit "GG". 94 /d., Exhibit "HH".

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8~73} Page 24 of 27 I ! I Lastly, the CIR argues that Jardine Lloyd failed to submit to the BIR copies of the withholding tax cer ficates when it ftled its administrative claim for refund, and it was only be� re the Court in Division that such were presented. Consequently, Jardi e Lloyd failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to availment of ju icial remedies. Jardine Lloyd, on the other hand, claims that this is the first in tance that the CIR raises this issue. In a vast array of decisions promulgated by this Court95, We have held non-submission of supporting doc ments in the administrative level is not fatal to an appeal on the ground of petitioner's inaction before the Court in Division. Being a court of record the cases ftled before the CTA are litigated de novo and party litigants should prove every minute aspect of their cases. Judicial claims are decided base on the evidence presented and formally offered by the party litigants durin the trial and not on mere allegation of non- submission of complete document before the BIR.96 I or Furthermore, the findings of the Court in Division show that petitioner has amply discharged the burden proof in this matter, thus: I i "In compliance with he second requisite, Uardine Lloyd] presented its Schedule of reditable Taxes Withheld for 200897 and Certificates of Credita le Tax Withheld at Source98 [BIR Form 2307] issued to it b various withholding agents for the year 2008 which were ex mined by the Court-commissioned independent CPA, Uy Sings n Abella & Co., through its partner, Ms. Ma. Milagros F. Fader al. In her report dated February 17, 2012, Ms. Padernal summar� ed her findings99 as follows: Exhibit BIR Form No. 230 Amount of Income Amount of Taxes No. Payment Withheld Supported with original BIR p 8,879,416.89 KK p 92,270,019.30 Form No. 2307 1n the 325.25 LL 3,252.49 Petitioner's Name I 300.00 3,000.00 p 8,880,042.14 Not supported with original p 97,276,271.79 BIR Form No. 2307 Error in recording I 95 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. CE Luz n Geothermal Power Company, Inc., CTA EB Case No. 474 (CTA Case Nos. 6792 & 6837), September 1, 20 9; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation, CTA EB Case No. 6S7 (CTA Case N s. 7424 & 7492); and Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction Co., Ltd. vs. Commissioner of lnte nal Revenue, CTA Case No. 8276, February 8, 2013. 96 ld., citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue . Visayas Geothermal Power Company, Inc., CTA EB No. 282 (CTA Case Nos. 6790 & 6838), November 0, 2007, citing Jldeco Manufacturing Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case N . 6552, September 16, 2004. 97 Rollo, p. 35, Exhibit "JJ". I 98 Rollo, p. 36, Exhibits "KK1" to "KK212". i 99 ld., par. 6 of Exhibit "UU", p. 6 of 15.

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 {CTA Case No. 8273} The ICPA explained ~at the error in recording pertains to a certificate of creditable taxi withheld at source (BIR Form No. 2307) from Insurance Corr}pany of North America wherein the amount of tax withheld wasl reported in the summary prepared by Jardine Lloyd100 as P1,838.~4 but the actual BIR Form No. 2307 reflects only P1,538.24.101 I The Court finds ICPA's report in order. The total amount of P625.25 (P325. 5 plus P300.00) requires a downward adjustment to the petitione 's claim. Therefore, out of the total claimed CWT of P8,8 0,039.00, petitioner was able to substantiate by proper thholding tax certificates only the creditable withholding ta es in the amount of P8,879,416.89 (Exhibit KK) for taxable y ar 2008." (Emphasis supplied). I I To summarize, in the Assaijed Decision, the Court in Division partially granted Jardine Lloyd's claim for I refund or issuance of tax credit certificate representing unutilized creditable ~thholding taxes (CWT) for calendar year (CY) 2008 in the amount of P3,56 ,915.23, while the amount of P5,309,498.52 was denied on the ground that Ja dine Lloyd failed to prove that it complied with the third requisite, i.e., the fncome payments upon which the claimed unutilized cwr were withheld werf declared as part of its gross income. i ! When trial was reopened, Ja dine Lloyd was allowed to submit details of its general ledgers so as to satisfac orily prove that the P58,332,023.13 income payments were declared as part of ts gross income, the corresponding CWT of which amounts to P5,309,498. 2. However, for failure to adequately substantiate the entire appealed a ount, the Court in Division, in its Assailed Amended Decision, found Jardine Lloyd entitled to a refund in the amount of P221,614.42 only, representing un~tilized excess CWT for taxable year 2008, in addition to the amount of P3,5~9,915.23 originally granted in the Assailed t Decision. ' I The Court En Bane finds cogent reason to disturb these findings, especially in the light of the fact t at the CIR did not raise any issue regarding the additional award for refund in �s Supplement to the Petition for Review. I ' WHEREFORE, premisesf'considered, the Petition for Review of the Commissioner of Internal Reve ue docketed as CTA EB No. 1177 is DENIED for lack of merit. Th assailed Amended Decision of the Special I /Y' 100 ld., Exhibit "JJ". 101 ld. at Note 26.

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 {CTA Case No. 8273} Second Division dated Septemb~~- 28, 2015, and its Resolution promulgated March 2, 2016 are hereby AFFIRI\jlED in toto. I I The Petition for Review of Jardine Lloyd Thompson Insurance Brokers, Inc. docketed as CTA EB No. 136~ is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. . ~. ~ ~f ~. __,4 "'-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: I (See Concurrin$ and Di mting Opinion) ROMAN p. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice ~~~c.~,9. LOVEiR. BAUTISTA JU<i<NITO c. CASTANEDK JR~ Associate Justice Associate Justice ~ E~P.UY CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice Associate Justice ESPE C~7-~~ CATHER~NE T. MANAHAN As~ociate Justice

DECISION CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273} I CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Sbction 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the above Decision lhas been reached in consultation with the members of the Court En Bane bef<pre the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of this Court. � Preszding Justice

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB No. 1177 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8273) Petitioner, -versus- JARDINE LLOYD THOMPSON INSURANCE BROKERS, INC., Respondent. )(- ------ -- -- -----------------)( JARDINE LLOYD THOMPSON CTA EB No. 1369 INSURANCE BROKERS, INC., (CTA Case No. 8273) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CASTANEDA, JR., COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL BAUTISTA, REVENUE, UY, CASANOVA, Respondent. FABON-VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, RINGPIS-LIBAN and MANAHAN, JJ. Promulgated: DEC 12 2017 ~-- )(- ---------- -- - ---------------------- --- - - -- - --- - )(

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273) I I' 1, CONCURRING A,D DISSENTING OPINION DEL ROSARIO, P.J.: I concur with the pone cia in denying the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's ("CIR") Petition for Review filed with the Court En Bane for lack of merit. I agree t at Jardine Lloyd Thompson Insurance Brokers, Inc. ("Jardine Lloyd") presented sufficient evidence to prove that it did not carry over or utili ed its excess withholding tax credits for the taxable year 2008 to the s cceeding periods. With due respect, howe er, I am constrained to withhold my conformity to the ponencia's outright dismissal of Jardine Lloyd's Petition for Review filed before the Court En Bane for its failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court in Division's Amended Decision, citing the pronounc ment in Asiatrust Development Bank, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Intel"! a/ Revenue/Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Asiatrust Oevel pment Bank, Inc. (Asiatrust case). 1 I humbly submit that the Court n Bane should have taken cognizance of Jardine Lloyd's Petition for A careful perusal of the siatrust case reveals that the Supreme Court, in declaring that a moti n for reconsideration of an amended decision is a condition precede t to an appeal to the Court En Bane, is confined to its finding that he CIR failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court i Division's amended decision, which granted an entirel new relie in favor of Asiatrust. The procedural propriety of Asiatrust in filing a motion for reconsideration of the amended decision is not an iss e resolved therein. Interestingly, the Asiatr, st case cites CE Luzon Geothermal Power Company, Inc. vs. Co missioner of Internal Revenue2 (CE Luzon case) where the Suprem Court did not declare as fatal the non- filing b CE Luzon of a motio for reconsideration of the amended decision which increased the mount of refund granted in favor of CE Luzon from P14 Million to P17 illion. The facts of the case (which are similar to the present case) rev al that CE Luzon directly appealed the Court in Division's amended d cision before the Court En Bane even as it remained unsatisfied with t e increased amount of refund granted in its favor. Truth to tell, the upreme Court, despite CE Luzon's non-filin of a motion for reconsideration of the Court in 1 G.R. Nos. 201530 and 201680-81, April19, 20k 2 G.R. Nos. 200841-42, August 26, 2015. j I i

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273) Division's amended decisi n before filin an a eal with the Court En Bane, proceeded t rule on the substantive aspect of CE Luzon's claim. On the other and, with regard to the CIR who filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court in Division's amended decision, the Supreme Court ruled that he same does not constitute a second motion for reconsideration sin e, in so far as the CIR is concerned, the amended decision which modified and increased CE Luzon's entitlement to a refund or tax redit certificate, is a different decision which is the proper subject of motion for reconsideration on the part of the CIR. The pronounce ent of the Supreme Court is quoted hereunder: "At the outset, the C urt deems it proper to address CE Luzon's claim that the CIR filed a "second" motion for reconsideration of the TA Division's January 19, 2010 Amended Decision. Con idering that a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibit d pleading and, thus, did not toll the period to file an appeal, CE L zan maintained that the June 24, 2009 Decision had long become fi al and executory. ' Under Section 3, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, an amended ecision is issued when there is any action modifying or reversing a decision of the CTA En Bane or in Division. Pursuant to these arameters, it is clear that the CIR's motions for partial reconsid ration - i.e., (a) motion for partial reconsideration of the June 4, 2009 Decision; and (b) motion for partial reconsideration of the anuary 19, 2010 Amended Decision- assailed separate and distin t decisions that were rendered by the CTA Division. Notably, its amended decision modified and increased CE Luzon's entitle ent to a refund or tax credit certificate in the amount of 17,277,93 .47. Essentially, it was therefore a different decision and, henc , the proper subject of a motion for reconsideration anew on th part of the CIR. Thus, CE Luzon's procedural objection must fail " (Boldfacing supplied) From the foregoing, it is clear that the pronouncement in the Asiatrust case should not b construed in a way where the rule against the filing of a sec nd motion for reconsideration is nullified. Section 3, Rule 14 of th Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals ("RRCTA") merely sp cifies the proper 'denomination' of the Court's action modifying or re ersing a previously issued Decision. Thus, the provision reads: I I "SEC. 3. Amended Decision.~ Any action modifying or reversing a decision of the Court en ban or in Division shall be denominated as Amended Decision." (Sol facing supplied) I

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273) The fact that an amende decision is eventually issued does not necessarily deviate from its na ure, which may in certain instances, be strictly a mere resolution of a motion for reconsideration. If the amended decision results f om a re-evaluation of the parties' respective positions which th Court originally rejected but which it eventually considered as merit rious (in whole or in part), I submit that a second motion for recons deration of the amended decision is unwarranted. To allow a seco d motion for reconsideration raising the same ground which the amen ed decision already considered would render the proscription agains a second Motion for Reconsideration meaningless even as it would result to unnecessary delay in the disposition of cases. Section 7, Rule 15 of the RRCTA is clear on this aspect, viz.: (ItI "SEC. 7. No second motion reconsideration or new trial.- No party shall be allowed to file a seco d motion for reconsideration or for new trial or decision, final resoluti nor order." I I I Parenthetically, it would �e inconsistent to the concept of speedy determination of controversies to allow-- much more-- require a party litigant to rehash, amplify r recycle in a second Motion for Reconsideration matters an arguments, which it had already presented in a first moti n for reconsideration and which, necessarily have been consi ered in the amended decision. After all, the movant should hav embodied in the first motion for reconsideration all supportin arguments relative to the assailed original decision pursuant to S ction 3, Rule 15 of the RRCTA. 3 I Relative to the parti s' respective motions for partial reconsideration and eventual fi ing of their Petitions for Review with the Court En Bane, records disclo e the following: � February 14, 2014- C urt in Division promulgated a Decision partially granting the Pe ition for Review of Jardine Lloyd. The Court ordered the CIR to refund or to issue a Tax Credit Certificate in favor of J rdine Lloyd in the reduced amount of P3,569,915.23, repres nting Jardine Lloyd's excess and ' 3 Section 3. Hearing of the motion.- The motiotfor reconsideration or new trial, as well as the opposition thereto, shall embody all supporting argume ts and the movant shall set the same for hearing on the next available motion day. Upon the expiration f the period set forth in the next preceding section, without any opposition having been filed by the other p rty, the motion for reconsideration or new trial shall be considered submitted for resolution, unless the ourt deems it necessary to hear the parties on oral argument, in which case the Court shall issue t~e proper order. (Boldfacing supplied)

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273) I I unutilized creditable incpme taxes withheld for calendar year 2008. 4 I I � February 28, 2014 -1I CIR filed his "Motion for Partial Reconsideration."5 Jard~�ne Lloyd also filed its "Motion for Reconsideration (with Motion to Reopen Trial of the Case and Request for Leave to Su mit Details of General Ledgers). "6 I � April 30, 2014- Court p~omulgated a Resolution denying CIR's Motion for Partial Rec nsideration and affirmed its Decision granting Jardine Lloyd's efund of excess and unutilized CWT in the reduced amount o P3,569,915.23. The Court, however, held in abeyance Jardin Lloyd's Motion for Reconsideration. In the same Resolution, Ja dine Lloyd's Motion to Reopen Trial of the Case and Request or Leave to Submit Details of General Ledgers was granted.7 I � May 22, 2015 - CIR file~ his Petition for Review with the Court En Bane. 8 1 � September 28, 2015 Court in Division promulgated the Amended Decision parti lly granting Jardine Lloyd's Motion for Reconsideration. The C urt ordered CIR to refund or issue a Tax Credit Certificate in fav r of Jardine Lloyd in the increased amount of P3,791,529. 5, representing Jardine Lloyd's excess and unutilized creditable income taxes withheld for calendar year � 2008. 9 21, 2015 +I filed a "Motion for Partial October CIR Reconsideration (Re: A ended Decision dated 28 September 2015)". 10 I 'I � November 6, 2015 - Jafdine Lloyd filed its Petition for Review with Court En Bane, whi h was received by the Court En Bane on November 12, 2015. 1 I � March 2, 2016 - Court in Division promulgated a Resolution denying CIR's "Motion fo Partial Reconsideration (Re: Amended Decision dated 28 Septe ber 2015)."12 4 CTA EB No. 1177 Rollo, pp. 25-48; CTA EB Nlo. 1369 Rollo, pp. 42-65. 5 CTA Case No. 8273 Rollo, pp. 418-432. 1 6 CTA Case No. 8273 Rollo, pp. 435-446. I 1 7 CTA Case No. 8273 Rollo, pp. 470-478. i 8 CTA EB No. 1177 Rollo, pp. 1-24. I �9 CTA EB No. 1177 Rollo, pp. 149-158.CTA EB No. 1369, pp. 31-40. 1 CTA Case No. 8273 Rollo, pp. 780-792. . 11 CTA EB No. 1369 Rollo, pp. 7-67. I 12 CTA EB No. 1177 Rollo, pp. 159-168. I,

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273) � May 19, 2016 - Court En Bane promulgated a Resolution granting CIR's "Motion f r Leave of Court to File Supplement to the Petition for Review."1 Based from the above- entioned factual antecedents, I submit that Jardine Lloyd correctly in eked the jurisdiction of the Court En Bane by filing the present Peti ion for Review to assail the Amended Decision of the Court in Divisi n. Jardine Lloyd clearly observed the condition precedent required u' der Sec. 1, Rule 8 of RRCTA14 when it filed its Motion for Reconsidera ion (with Motion to Reopen Trial of the Case and Request for Leave t Submit Details of General Ledgers) of the February 14, 2014 Decisio within fifteen (15) days from its receipt of said Decision. The Amen ed Decision already considered the arguments raised in Jardine Ll yd's Motion for Reconsideration. Thus, Jardine Lloyd may not file anot er Motion for Reconsideration to assail the Amended Decision since he Court in Division already made a favorable action on its Motion for Reconsideration, albeit not in the total amount as prayed for in its P titian for Review before the Court in Division. A motion for recons deration by Jardine Lloyd assailing the Court in Division's Amen ed Decision would be in the nature of a second motion for rec nsideration, the filing of which is prohibited under Section 7, ule 15 of the RRCTA. From the foregoing, I sub it that the assailed Amended Decision has not attained finality insofa as Jardine Lloyd is concerned. It is, therefore, proper for the Court En Bane to assume jurisdiction over Jardine Lloyd's Petition for Review. I Upon perusal of the recor~s, I submit that Jardine Lloyd's Petition for Review should be DENIED f\r reasons discussed hereunder. A. Income Payments of P58,332,012.13 cannot be traced to Jardine Lloyd's General Ledger; thus, corresponding CWT of P5,309,498.52 was disallowed 13 CTA EB No. 1177 Rollo, pp. 173-175. en ban~ - In cases falling under the exclusive appellate 14 Section 1. Review of cases in the Court jurisdiction of the Court en bane, the petition for re iew of a decision or resolution of the Court in Division must be preceded by the filing of a timely motion f r reconsideration or new trial with the Division. (Sec. 1, Rule 8 of RRCTA)

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273) The original Decision of he Special Second Division found that the amount of P58,332,023. 3 with corresponding creditable tax withheld of P5,309,498.52 as not properly substantiated. Such amounts cannot be traced wit certainty from the production reports, general ledgers and Annual I come Tax Return submitted for prior years. 15 II Together with an unsup orted CWT certificate in the amount of P325.2516 and error in record ng of P300.00, 17 the Special Second Division granted a refund in t e amount of P3,569,915.23 only, as follows: 18 I Amount of Amount of Income CWT Claim for Refund/TCC Less: Disallowed (No supporting SIR Forrr 2307 Payments p 8,880,039.00 625.25 and error in recording) p 97,276,271.79 Income payments cannot be traced rom 6,252.49 5,309,498.52 the GL Substantiated CWT 58,332,023.13 p 3,569,915.23 p 38,937,996.17 When the case was re-o ened for trial, Jardine Lloyd submitted additional supporting docume ts in the form of production reports, details of general ledgers, tria balances, and Reconciliation of the Amounts of Gross Income in th Gls and Annual ITRs for CYs 2007, 2008 and 2009. In her Supple ental Sworn Statement dated October 16, 201419, Jardine Lloyd's wit ess, Ms. Maria Esperanza Rosario R. Dellosa, explained the nat re of the disallowed amount of P58,332,023.13, as follows: II "A15: The to al income payment of Php97,276,271. 79 involve in this case, which includes the Php58,332,023.13, is ased on the related CWT certificates the Company eceived and reported in 2008. It does not represent the total amount of income the Company earned in 2008 nd reported as gross income in the 2008 Annual ITR. ome of the CWT certificates received in 2008 pertain to income in 2007 that was already reported as gross income in the Company's 2007 Annual ITR. On the other hand, a portion of the 2008 income reported in the production reports and in the GL for 2008 15 Docket, CTA EB No. 1369, pp. 57-61. i I 16 td.. p. 53. 1 17 /d. . 18 td.. p. 62. I 19 Exhibit "CCCCC", Docket (Vol. II), CTA Case N~. 8903, pp. 687-700. I

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273) will only be paid in 20 9 and the corresponding CWT certificates will only be r ceived and reported in 2009. In short, portion of the Ph 97,276,271.79 income payment were already reported as gross income in 2007 AnnuaiiTR and does not include inc me payment already reported as gross income in 2008 Annual ITR but the CWT certificates of which will only be recei ed in 2009. Therefore, if you only compare the Php97,27~,271. 79 with the income in the 2008 Production Report~ and 2008 GL, it will certainly not match because they cam~ from different sources. They are not comparable."20 I The Court in Division r viewed the alleged CWT certificates propounded by Jardine Lloy and found that only the amount of P32, 144,917.77 was supported by additional evidence. As a result, only the amount of P2,682,4 3.28 of CWT was reexamined by the Court in Division. 21 I In its Petition for Review 2 filed with the Court En Bane, Jardine Lloyd reiterates its position tha the income payment in the amount of P58,332,023.13 is supported by sufficient evidence and that such amount can be traced to the bil ing statements, production reports, trial balances, and general ledgers for CY 2007, 2008 and 2009. Jardine Lloyd insists that an exhau tive reexamination of all the CWT certificates it submitted would isclose that Jardine Lloyd's income for CY 2008 are all supported. I I disagree with Jardine Llpyd. ! Upon perusal of the sub itted documents, I agree with the Court in Division that only the i come payment in the amount of P32, 144,917.77 can be trace from the billing statements and daily premium production reports s bmitted in evidence. These pertain to CWT certificates which were i entified in the original Decision as not sufficiently substantiated and f r which Jardine Lloyd was able to trace thereafter, as found in the I st submitted by Ms. Dellosa in her Supplemental Sworn Stateme t. 23 I As to the remaining ilncome payment in the amount of P26, 187,105.36, there is no in~ication whatsoever that the amount of i 20 /d., p. 691. 1, 21 Docket, CTA EB No. 1369, pp. 36-37. 1 22 Docket, CTA EB No. 1369, pp. 15-20. I 23 Q&A No. 19, Exhibit "CCCCC", Docket (Vol. II~, CTA Case No. 8903, pp. 692-696.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273) income payment stated in the CWT Certificates can be traced in the production reports and billings atements. Thus, it can be surmised that the said untraceable amo nt of income payment are either unsupported or they were so lumped together in the production reports or general ledger that they cannot be individually identified. B. Discrepancies between the Claimed CWTs and Amounts per Supporting Documents 1, I I Upon re-examination of the allowed income payments of only P32, 144,917.77, with correspo ding CWT ofP2,682,443.28, I give my assent to the observation of he Court in Division as stated in the Amended Decision, viz.: I "Upon re-examinati n of the CWTs amounting to P2,682,443.28, it is observ d that not all amounts found in the additional supporting docu ents, particularly in the Production Reports where the debits/c edits to Fees and Commissions are reflected, are equal to the a ount of income payments shown in the CWT certificates. Hence, th Court cannot ascertain if a particular entry to the Production Repo (and subsequently to the GL) truthfully represents the income paymtnt per CWT being supported. "xxx x~x xxx 'I "Since there is no ay to determine the truthfulness of petitioner's allegations, the ourt cannot see the exact amounts of income payments in the WT certificates when traced to the Production Reports and Ge eral Ledgers. Since the withholding agent per CWT and the na ed payee per billing statements and Production Reports are not t e same, then the Court cannot verify that the income payment per WT pertains to Commission and Fees income reported as part of p titioner's gross income."24 Jardine Lloyd contends t at the discrepancies are "unavoidable because of timing differences f reporting gross income on one hand, and the time of withholding f taxes on the other, discrepancies brought about by CIR's own re enue issuances."25 i 1 likewise disagree with Jrrdine Lloyd on this regard. 24 Docket, CTA EB No. 1369, pp. 35-37. 25 /d., p. 21.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion CTA EB Nos. 1177 & 1369 (CTA Case No. 8273) The discrepancies bet een the amounts in the production reports and in the claimed C Ts do not pertain to timing differences. These are discrepancies arisi g from the identification of the entries themselves and the lack of in ormation on the identity of the payers. Noticeably, the Fees and Co missions reflected in the production reports do not correspond t the income payments in the CWT Certificates. For instance, th CWT in Exhibit "KK-1" showing an amount of P235.64 cannot b found in Exhibits "CCC" to "CCC-3." There is no opportunity for the ourt to ascertain Jardine Lloyd's claim as the evidence it submitted failed to corroborate its stance. The Court exerted lengths to reconcil the income payments per CWT Certificates and per productio reports but only the income payments of P2,245,690.79, with corres ending CWTs of P221,614.42, were traced to the production report .26 Well-settled is the rule th t actions for tax refund, as in this case, are in the nature of a claim for exemption and the law is construed in strictissimi juris against the t xpayer, and the pieces of evidence presented entitling a taxpayer t an exemption is strictissimi scrutinized and must be duly proven. 27 nfortunately for Jardine Lloyd's, the evidence it presented failed to tass this bar. All told, I VOTE to: (i) D~NY the Petition for Review filed by the Commissioner of Internal Re enue in CTA EB No. 1177 and the Petition for Review filed by Jardine Lloyd Thompson Insurance Brokers, Inc. in CTA EB No. 1369, both for lack of merit; and, (ii) AFFIRM the assailed Amended Decision of the Special Second Division dated September 28, ~015 and its Resolution dated March 2, 2016. ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice 26 Jd.� pp. 37-38. 1 27 Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development cprp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 19490, February 18, 2008. 1