AYALA CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SECOND DIVISION AYALA CORPORATION, CTA Case No. 9556 Petitioner, Members: CASTANEDA, JR., Chairperson, and BACORRO-VILLENA, 11. -versus- COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, JAN 11 2021 L_ Respondent. r7 3: .!'> ,.,. . x------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------x AMENDED DECISION - CASTANEDA, JR., J.: Submitted before the Court are the following: 1. petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed on March 16, 2020, with respondent's Comment filed through registered mail on July 14, 2020 and received by the Court on July 21, 2020; and 2. respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration (re: Decision dated February 26, 2020),\filed through registered mail on June 29, 2020 and received by the Court on July 6, 2020, with petitioners' Opposition filed on June October 19, 2020. ~

AMENDED DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9556 On February 26, 2020, this Court promulgated a Decision partially granting petitioner's claim for refund of excess creditable withholding tax (CWT) for calendar year (CY) 2014, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is ORDERED to issue a tax credit certificate in favor of petitioner in the reduced amount of P44,691,731.64, representing petitioner's excess and unutilized creditable withholding taxes for calendar year 2014. SO ORDERED." Aggrieved, both parties filed their respective Motions seeking partial reconsideration of the above Decision. Petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration In its Motion, petitioner moves for the partial reconsideration of the said Decision raising the following grounds in support of its arguments: I. The Honorable Court erred in disallowing a portion of the claim for tax credit in the total amount of P17,694,834.00 on the ground that petitioner failed to substantiate its prior year's excess tax credit to cover the income tax liabilities for calendar year 2014. II. The Honorable Court failed to consider that petitioner's prior year's excess tax credits of P33,295,683.00 reported in its 2014 annual ITR came from the CWTs for calendar year 2005 which were reinstated in petitioner's 2011 annual ITR. III. This Honorable Court erred in finding that petitioner failed to substantiate the CWTs for calendar years 2006 and 2007 /L

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9556 which would be offset against income tax liabilities for calendar years 2005 to 2013. To recapitulate, the Court denied a portion of petitioner's claim for refund in the amount P17,694,834.00 for its failure to prove that it has sufficient prior year's excess tax credits upon which the income tax due for the CY 2014 may be applied, as held in the assailed Decision: "Petitioner claims that its minimum corporate income tax (MCIT) due for CY 2014 in the amount of P17,694,834.00 was paid using a portion of its prior year's excess credits of P33,295,683.00. This leaves the prior year's excess tax credits in the amount of P15,600,849.00 and creditable taxes withheld during the CY 2014 in the amount of P62,660,776.00 totaling P78,261,625.00 unutilized as of December 31, 2014, as shown below: Prior Year's Excess Credits other than MCIT P33 295 683.00 Less: Income Tax Due (MCIT) 17,694,834.00 Balance of Prior Year's Excess Credits p 15 600 849.00 Add: Creditable Taxes Withheld- CY 2014 62,660 776.00 Excess Creditable Taxes Withheld as of December 31, 2014 P78,261,625.00 Further, petitioner opted for the issuance of a TCC for its CWTs for the CY 2014 by marking the box corresponding to the option 'To be issued a Tax Credit Certificate (TCC)' and as evidenced by petitioner's Annual ITR and Quarterly ITRs for CY 2014, only the prior year's excess credits of P15,600,849.00 were carried over. Clearly the claimed CWTs for CY 2014 amounting to P62,660,776.00 were not carried over to the succeeding quarters or taxable year. Thus, the substantiated CWTs for CY 2014 in the amount of P62,386,565.64 may be refunded pursuant to Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Records, however, reveal that petitioner failed to prove that it has sufficient prior year's excess tax credits upon which the income tax due for the CY 2014 may be r applied.

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9556 As illustrated below, the prior year's excess credits reported in petitioner's 2014 Annual ITR, originated from the cwrs for the years 2005 to 2007: (Income Tax Exhibit Taxable Prior Year's MCIT Still Due)/ CWTfor EWTatthe Year due Balance of the year End of the Excess (b) Prior Year's Excess Credits (d) year Credits (e)= (c)+ (d) (a) (c)= (a) less (b) P-3-4 2005 P14 080 672.00 P5 612 835.72 P8 467 836.28 P8 467 836.28 P-16�1 2006 8 467 836.28 9 478 115.96 (1 010 279.68) P34 133 265.00 33 122 985.32 P-16-2 2007 33 122 985.32 10 269 099.44 22 853 885.88 33 769 015.00 56 622 900.88 P-16-3 2008 56 622 900.88 8 908 985.78 47 713 915.10 47,71~915.10 P-16-4 2009 47 713 915.10 11 306 546.70 36 407 368.40 36 407 368.40 P-16-5 2010 36 407 368.40 11 879 600.62 24 527 767.78 24 527 767.78 P-4-4 2011 24 527 767.78 7 222 902.33 17 304 865.45 39 557 207.66* 56 862 073.11 P-5-1 2012 56 862 073.11 15 519 554.22 41 342 518.89 41 342 518.89 P-6-1 2013 41,342,518.89 8,046,836.00 33,295,682.89 33,295,682.89 *under 'Other Credits,' described as '2005 CWTs not allowed for issuance of TCC by the CTA' per CTA Decision in CTA Case No. 7754. Note that the total accumulated cwr for each of the CYs 2008 to 2013 were not presented as tax credits against the petitioner's income tax liabilities (MCIT due) in those years nor carried over to the 2014 Annual ITR since these pertain to petitioner's previous claims for issuance of TCC with this Court. To substantiate the CWTs from prior years, petitioner submitted in evidence various Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source (BIR Forms No. 2307) but pertaining to CY 2005 only. Petitioner was able to substantiate the amount of P37,092,759.16 CWTs for CY 2005, as follows: Summary of CWTs supported by original Certificate of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source (BIR Form 2307) issued by the payor in the petitioner's name and stamped p 39,358,887.04 'received' by the SIR's Large Taxpayers Assistance Division ~ for the CY 2015 Less: Exceptions (Denied Exhibits for not being found in the records/not supported by BIR Form No. 2307). Exhibit Payor Amount No. of Taxes Withheld P-30-4 Honda Cars Ala bang p 644,720.91 P-30-8 Honda Cars Pasig (A Branch of 540,258.53 Honda Cars Makati, Inc.) P-30-12 Honda Cars Makati, Inc. 581,275.05 P-30-14 Isuzu Automotive Dealership, 192.96 Inc. - Alabanq

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9556 P-30-17 Isuzu Automotive Dealership, 62,427.25 P-30-18 Inc. - Alabang 77,155.04 P-30-19 Isuzu Automotive Dealership, 81,674.18 Inc. - Alabang Isuzu Automotive Dealership, Inc. - Alabanq P-30-20 Isuzu Automotive Dealership, 55,589.01 Inc. - Alabang P-30-22 Isuzu Automotive Dealership, 49,045.11 Inc. - Alabang 313.94 Sonoma Services Inc. 173,475.90 2,266,127.88 Sonoma Services Inc. P37,092,759.16 Valid CWTs for CY 2005 However, the same is not sufficient to cover the total taxes due for the years 2005 to 2013, as shown below: Valid CWTs for 2005 I" 37 092 759.16 Less: MCIT Due I" 5 612 835.72 88,244,476.77 CY 2005 9 478 115.96 P(51,151,717.61) CY 2006 10 269,099.44 CY 2007 8 908 985.78 CY 2008 11 306 546.70 CY 2009 11 879,600.62 CY 2010 7 222 902.33 CY 2011 15 519 554.22 CY 2012 8 046 836.00 CY 2013 Tax Still Due Hence, a portion of the substantiated CWT in the amount of P62,386,565.64 for the CY 2014 shall be applied against the income tax liability of P17,694,834.00 for the CY 2014. Consequently, petitioner's refundable excess CWTs for CY 2014 amount only to P44,691,731.64, computed as follows: Substantiated CWTs 1"62 386 565.64 Less: Income Tax Due CY 2014 17 694,834.00 Refundable excess CWTs P44,691,731.64 X X X."l In disputing the above finding, petitioner explains that its prior year's excess tax credits in the amount of P33,295,683.00, appearing~ 1 Decision, pp. 21 to 23.

AMENDED DECISION erA CASE NO. 9556 in its 2014 annual Income Tax Return (ITR), came from the unapplied or remaining portion of CY 2005 CWTs which were reinstated in the 2011 annual ITR, based on the First-In First-Out (FIFO) method. As to the factual and legal bases for the reinstatement of the CY 2005 CWTs in the 2011 annual ITR, petitioner asserts that the same were already fully explained by its witness, Maria Susana C. Babies, in her in the Judicial Affidavit and in the Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA) Report. Petitioner further claims that during trial, it was able to present sufficient testimonial and documentary evidence to prove the authenticity and due execution of the CWTs for CYs 2006 and 2007. Petitioner insists that the Court take a look and adopt the findings made in the similar cases of Court ofTax Appeals (CTA) Case No. 8629 (2011) and CTA Case No. 9024 (2013) which also involves petitioner's claims for refund of its excess CWT, more particularly on the substantiation of the CWTs for CYs 2010 and 2011 and CYs 2012 and 2013, respectively. Petitioner continues that in the Decision dated February 13, 2018 for CTA Case No. 9024, the CTA First Division partially granted its claim for refund in CYs 2012 and 2013 in the total amount of P127,292,477.20. As shown in the records of that case, petitioner's prior year's excess credits reported in CY 2012 and 2013 annual ITRs in the respective amounts of P56,862,073.00 and P41,342,519.00 originated from the creditable taxes withheld for CYs 2005 to 2007 that were duly supported Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source (BIR Form No. 2307). Petitioner further contends that while it admits that the above-cited Decisions were not offered as part of its documentary evidence, this Court should nonetheless take mandatory judicial notice of the said CTA Decisions for being official acts of the judicial department of the Philippines as provided under Section 1, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court, quoted as follows: "RULE 129 What Need Not Be Proved Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. - A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime Jk--

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9556 courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions." Unfortunately, this Court does not agree. To stress, in the case of Silkair (Singapore) Pte., Ltd v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue/ the Supreme Court emphasizes that evidence already presented and admitted by the court in a previous case cannot be adopted in a separate case pending before the same court without the same being offered and identified anew, to wit: "Petitioner's assertion that the CTA may take judicial notice of its SEC Registration, previously offered and admitted in evidence in similar cases before the CTA, is untenable. XXX 'Each and every case is distinct and separate in character and matter although similar parties may have been involved. Thus, in a pending case, it is not mandatory upon the courts to take judicial notice of pieces of evidence which have been offered in other cases even when such cases have been tried or pending in the same court. Evidence already presented and admitted by the court in a previous case cannot be adopted in a separate case pending before the same court without the same being offered and identified anew. The cases cited by petitioner concerned similar parties before the same court but do not cover the same claim. A court is not compelled to take judicial notice of pieces of evidence offered and admitted in a previous case ,IlL, 2 G.R. No. 184398, February 25, 2010.

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9556 unless the same are properly offered or have accordingly complied with the requirements on the rules of evidence. In other words, the evidence presented in the previous cases cannot be considered in this instant case without being offered in evidence. Moreover, Section 3 of Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that hearing is necessary before judicial notice may be taken by the courts. To quote said section: Sec. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. - During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon. After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.' XXX Moreover, Section 3 of the same Rule provides that a hearing is necessary before judicial notice of any matter may be taken by the court. This requirement of a hearing is needed so that the parties can be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case." Furthermore, in Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation/ the Supreme Court categorically ruled that, in no uncertain terms, CTA decisions do not constitute as binding precedents, to wit: :><-- 3 G.R. Nos. 187485,196113, and 197156, February 12, 2013.

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9556 "x x x. Suffice it to state that CTA decisions do not constitute precedents, and do not bind this Court or the public. That is why CTA decisions are appealable to this Court, which may affirm, reverse or modify the CTA decisions as the facts and the law may warrant. Only decisions of this Court constitute binding precedents, forming part of the Philippine legal system. As held by this Court in The Philippine Veterans Affairs Office v. Segundo: x x x Let it be admonished that decisions of the Supreme Court 'applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution ... form part of the legal system of the Philippines,' and, as it were, 'laws' by their own right because they interpret what the laws say or mean. Unlike rulings of the lower courts, which bind the parties to specific cases alone, our judgments are universal in their scope and application, and equally mandatory in character. Let it be warned that to defy our decisions is to court contempt." Clearly, it is erroneous for petitioner to insist that this Court take judicial notice of the findings made in other CTA cases. The Court recognizes, as it always has, that the burden of proof to establish entitlement to refund is on the claimant taxpayer. Each case must be decided on its own merits and based on the strength of evidence presented therein. The Court cannot give probative and evidentiary value on items which have not been presented before the Court. Being in the nature of a claim for exemption, refund is construed in strictissimi juris against the entity claiming the refund and in favor of the taxing power.4 Henceforth, considering that the cwrs for 2006 to 2007 have not been offered in evidence, no evidentiary value can be given to them as the rules on documentary evidence require that these documents must be formally offered during trial before this Court.5 Simply stated, petitioner failed to substantiate the cwrs for CY 2006 and 2007. ~ 4 Winebrenner & Inigo Insurance Brokers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 206526, January 28, 2015. 5 See Rafael Arsenio S. Dizon v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 140944, April 30, 2008.

AMENDED DECISION erA CASE NO. 9556 With regard to petitioner's argument that the prior year's excess tax credits reported in its annual ITR for CY 2014 in the amount of P33,295,683.00 pertains to the reinstated 2005 CWTs in its 2011 annual ITR, the Court will consider the same. Perforce, the amount of P39,557,207.66 represents the "2005 CWTs not allowed for issuance of TCC by the CTA". As can be seen from the table below, the reinstated CY 2005 CWTs in the amount of P39,557,207.66, together with the amount of P24,527J67.78 representing CY 2011 prior year's excess credits were available for utilization to pay the MCIT dues for CYs 2011 to 2013. Exhibit Taxable Prior Year's MCIT (Income Tax CWTfor EWTatthe Year Excess due Still Due)/ the year End of the P-3-4 Credits (b) Balance of P-16-1 2005 (a) Prior Year's (d) year P-16-2 2006 (e)=(c)+ P-16-3 2007 P14 080 672.00 P5 612 835.72 Excess Credits P34 133 265.00 P-16-4 2008 8 467 836.28 9 478 115.96 (c) = (a)less (b) 33 769 015.00 (d) P-16-5 2009 33 122 985.32 10 269 099.44 P-4-4 2010 56 622 900.88 8 908 985.78 P8 467 836.28 39 557 207.66 P8 467 836.28 P-5-1 2011 47 713 915.10 11 306 546.70 (1 010 279.68) 33 122 985.32 P-6-1 2012 11 879 600.62 22 853 885.88 56 622 900.88 2013 36 407 368.40 7 222 902.33 47 713 915.10 47 713 915.10 24 527 767.78 15 519 554.22 36 407 368.40 36 407 368.40 56 862 073.11 8 046 836.00 24 527 767.78 24 527 767.78 41 342 518.89 17 304 865.45 56 862 073.11 41 342 518.89 41 342 518.89 33 295 682.89 33 295 682.89 However, petitioner failed to substantiate CY 2011 prior year's excess credits of P24,527J67.78 from which the income tax liabilities from CYs 2011 to 2013 may be applied. Likewise, petitioner also failed to substantiate CY 2005 prior year's excess credits of P14,080,672.00 to offset its CY 2005 Minimum Corporate Income Tax (MCIT) due of P5,612,835.72. Thus, the Court is constrained to apply the valid CWTs of 2005 against petitioner's MCIT dues for the CYs 2005 and 2011 to 2013. Out of the P39,557,207.66 reinstated CWTs for CY 2005, only the amount of P37,092J59.16 was found to be valid as per the assailed Decision, which latter figure when deducted from the total taxes due for the CYs 2005 and 2011 to 2013, only the amount of P690,630.89 can be carried-over and credited against petitioner's MCIT for CY 2014 in the amount of P17,694,834.00, as shown below: Valid CWTs for 2005 f'37 092 759.16 Less: MCIT Due ~

AMENDED DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9556 CY 2005 1"5 612 835.72 CY 2011 7 222 902.33 CY 2012 15,519 554.22 CY 2013 8 046 836.00 36 402 128.27 p 690,630.89 Amount allowable for carrv over to CY 2014 That having been settled the Court shall now proceed to discuss the merit of respondent's Motion. Respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration In his Motion, respondent maintains that petitioner is not entitled to refund any of its claimed cwr. Respondent reiterates that not only that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies, but also begs the Court to take a second look at the Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source (BIR Forms No. 2307) presented by petitioner. He claims that in addition to the disallowances made by the Court, the taxes withheld in the amount of P894,448.25 should likewise be disallowed for the reasons stated below, to wit: Amount of Amount of Period Covered Name of Payor Income Taxes Payment Withheld I. Dated outside the period of claim 27/12/2013 27/12/2013 Bank of the Philippine p 34,909.05 p 698.18 Islands 01/10/2015 31/12/2015 Zobel de Ayala, Jaime 300,000.00 45,000.00 PFm II. BIR Form No. 2307 not in petitioner's name 01/04/2014 30/06/2014 Pilipinas Shell Petroleum 250,000.00 37,500.00 Corporation III. No signature in BIR Form No. 2307 09/12/2014 09/12/2014 Liveit Investments Ltd. - 414,642.87 20,732.14 Philippine ROHQ IV. Duplicate copies of BIR Form No. 2307 23/04/2014 23/04/2014 Manila Water Company 1,200 000.00 180,000.00 23/04/2014 23/04/2014 Manila Water Company 100 000.00 15,000.00 01/04/2014 30/06/2014 Honda Cars Makati Inc. 77,602.50 1 552.05 01/01/2014 31/03/2014 Ayala Land Inc. 100,000.00 15,000.00 01/08/2014 31/08/2014 South Luzon Thermal 30,000.00 4,500.00 Energy Corp. 01/10/2014 31/12/2014 Iconic Dealership Inc. 3 779 772.50 566,965.88 01/10/2014 31/12/2014 ALFM Dollar Bond Fund, 10,000.00 1,500.00 Inc. 01/10/2014 31/12/2014 ALFM Growth Fund Inc. 10 000.00 1 500.00 01/10/2014 31/12/2014 ALFM Peso Bond Fund Inc. 30,000.00 4,500.00 Total P6,336,926.92 P894,448.25 }<-

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9S56 Accordingly, upon re-examination of the related documents, the Court makes the following findings, viz.: Period Covered Name of Amount of Amount of Court's findings Payor Income Taxes Payment Withheld I. Dated outside the period of claim 27/12/2013 27/12/2013 Bank of the f' 34,909.05 p 698.18 Exhibit "P-19-167'; Philippine 45,000.00 Already disallowed Islands per assailed Decision (page 01/10/2015 31/12/2015 Zobel de Ayala, 300,000.00 16). Although a Jaime PFm different sales amount is reflected in the Decision, the resulting CWT claim is also !'698.18. Exhibit ''P-19-182~ dated 10/01/15 to 12/31/15 II. BIR Form No. 2307 not in petitioner's name Pilipinas Shell 250,000.00 37,500.00 Exhibit "P-20-3'; 01/04/2014 30/06/2014 Petroleum Already formed part of!CPA's Corporation disallowances in the total amount of !'141,000.00 per assailed Decision III. No siqnature in BIR Form No. 2307 Live it Exhibit "P-19-46'; signature of 09/12/2014 09/12/2014 Investments 414,642.87 20,732.14 Francis John L. Ltd. - Philippine Arzaqa is missinq. 1,200,000.00 180,000.00 The Court was ROHQ 100,000.00 15,000.00 able to trace each 77,602.50 1,552.05 BIRFormNo. IV. Duplicate copies of BIR Form No. 2307 100,000.00 15,000.00 2307toa 30,000.00 4,500.00 corresponding line 23/04/2014 23/04/2014 Manila Water item in the Company 3,779,772.50 566,965.88 General Ledger of 10,000.00 1,500.00 petitioner, 23/04/2014 23/04/2014 Manila Water 10,000.00 1,500.00 therefore, except Company 30,000.00 4,500.00 for Honda Cars Makati, Inc's 01/04/2014 30/06/2014 Honda Cars transaction which Makati Inc. has only one BIR Form No. 2307, 01/01/2014 31/03/2014 Ayala Land Inc. these actually represent two South Luzon different sales transactions even 01/08/2014 31/08/2014 Thermal Energy though they have Corp. l A CWTs on the same 01/10/2014 31/12/2014 Iconic Dealership Inc. 01/10/2014 31/12/2014 ALFM Dollar Bond Fund Inc. 01/10/2014 31/12/2014 ALFM Growth Fund Inc. 01/10/2014 31/12/2014 ALFM Peso Bond Fund, Inc.

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9556 Total date for the same amount. P6 336 926.92 P894 448.25 Thus, in view of the foregoing, this Court partially grants respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration thereby disallowing the following CWT certificates from petitioner's claim in the total amount of P65,732.14, broken down as follows: Period Exhibit Payee CWTCiaim Reason for Reference p 45,000.00 Disallowance 01/10/2015 to "P-19-182" Zobel de Ayala, Jaime Dated outside the 31/12/2015 PFm 20,732.14 period of claim "P-19-46" Signature ofFrancis 09/12/2014 to Live i t Investments P65,732.14 John L. Arzaga 09/12/2014 missing. Ltd.-Philippine ROHQ TOTAL WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration and respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration (re: Decision dated February 26, 2020) are both PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision promulgated on February 26, 2020 is hereby amended to read as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ORDERED to ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner in the reduced amount of P45,316,630.39, representing petitioner's excess and unutilized creditable withholding taxes for calendar year 2014, computed as follows: Allowable Prior Year's Excess Credits !>62,386,565.64 p 690,630.89 for CY 2014 (65,732.14) (17,694,834.00) Less: MCIT Due for CY 2014 !>(17,004,203.11) MCIT still due Add: Substantiated CWTs for CY 62,320,833.50 2014 per assailed Decision Less: Additional disallowable CWT P45,316,630.39 per respondent's Motion Revised amount of refundable excessCWTs SO ORDERED." it-

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9556 SO ORDERED. ~:L........~ c.~~ Q fOANITO C. CASfAKfED'#f(,'jR, Associate Justice !CONCUR: ' ( CORRO-VILLENA ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Amended Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. ~~~ C.G$.:;-o-(. /~ ftiANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR. Associate Justice Chairperson

AMENDED DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9556 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Amended Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. Presiding Justice