SAN MIGUEL BREWERY INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Q uezon City S...oecial Third Division SAN MIGUEL BREWERY INC., CTA CASE NO. 8955 Petitioner, Members: -ve rsus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, pstflu1f~ehl ~e1Dondent ~--1'/J_~-~~~~------x X------------------------------------------------------------- ---- DECISION RINGPIS-LIBAN, J. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case was remanded by the Court En Bane, for the resolution thereof on the merits, pursuant to its Decision dated September 19,2018 in CTA EB No. 1772,1 the dispositive portion of which reads: "WHEREFORE, the present Petition for Review is GRANTED. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated August 18, 2017 and Resolution dated January 5, 2018 rendered by the Court in Division in CTA Case No. 8955 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Let this case be REMANDED to the Court in D ivision for the resolution of the case on the merits, in conformity with this Decision. SO ORDERED." r/ I Docket - Vol. 2, pp. 728 to 745.

CTA Case No. 8955 San Miguel Brewery, Im�. vs. CommiSJioner rif Internal &venue Page 2 of21 ANTECEDENTS On August 18, 2017, this Court in Division rendered its Decision on the present case,2 the dispositive portion of which reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is hereby DENIED, petitioner having availed of the wrong mode of appeal. SO ORDERED." Petitioner then f!led its Motion for Reconsideration on September 6, 2017.3 Respondent filed its Opposition Re: Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration on October 13,2017.4 The Court, however, denied the said Motion for Reconsideration in the Resolution dated January 5, 2018,5 the dispositive portion of which states as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Assailed Decision dated August 18, 2017 is AFFIRMED and UPHELD. SO ORDERED." Undeterred, on February 14, 2018, petitioner filed a Petition for Review with this Court En Bane, docketed as CTA EB No. 1772. Respondent flied his Comment thereto on April 5, 2018. As already intimated, the Court En Bane ruled in favor of petitioner in its Decision dated September 19, 2018. Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration Re: Decision dated 19 September 2018 on October 10,2018.6 On November 28,2018, petitioner flied its Opposition To The Respondent's "Motion for Reconsideration" dated October 9, 2018.7 In the Resolution dated January 24, 2019,8 the Court En Bane denied respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, vii;/ 2 Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 652 to 668. 'Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 675 to 688. 4 Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 695 to 707. s Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 712 to 715. 6 Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 749 to 760. 7 Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 768 to 776. s Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 783 to 786. ��

CTA Case No. 8955 San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal &venue Page 3 of21 "WHEREFORE, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 19 September 20 18) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED." Thereafter, the Court En Bane issued the Resolution dated February 15, 2021 9 with the following pronouncements, to wit: "On July 28, 2020, this Court received a Notice of the Resolution dated January 8, 2020 issued by the Supreme Court, Third Division Re: G.R. No 244738 (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Miguel Brewery, Inc.) declaring that the said case is considered closed and terminated, in light of the CIR's Manifestation that he opted not to ftle a petition for review on certiorari. On December 16, 2020, this Court received an Entry of Judgment Re: G.R. No. 244738 which states that the Supreme Court Resolution on said case has become final and executory on July 2, 2020 and was recorded in the Book of Entries ofJudgments. In view of the withdrawal of the CIR's appeal before the Supreme Court, the Court En Banes Decision in the above- captioned case has become final and executory. In accordance with CTA A.M. No. 18-6-2015, the present case is REMANDED to the Court in Division for its resolution on the merits. SO ORDERED." PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE REMAND OF THE CASE TO THIS COURT IN DIVISION On March 1, 2021, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave To File, and For Admission of, the Attached ''Supplemental Formal Evidence" dated February 26, 2021.10 Respondent filed his Comment (Re: Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File, and for Admission of, the Attached Supplemental Formal Offer ofEvidence dated February 26, 2021 on March 19, 2021.11 In the Resolution dated June 22, 2021,12 the Court: (1) set the case for Commissioner's hearing, (2) recalled petitioner's witness, Ms. Noemi L. Ronquillo, and (3) declared that after the said hearing, petitioner's Motionfor Leave shall be deemed submitted for resolution. ;V 9 Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 795 to 797. "' Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 798 to 808. 11 Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 818 to 820. 12 Docket -Vol. 2, pp. 823 to 826.

CTA Case No. 8955 San Miguel Brewery, lnt~ V.f. Commim.oner qf Internal Revenue Page 4 of21 rgdoefiiEvsrepevcniodtnefaAdinnfecttdeentYetchnrefoTa(his1hlsee5uda)esrx,itdanooamgynftsihlAneewaplhtdiriitoisholni1ncn.2oA,wImn2phm0rtii2hcle2hen6,,tstpo2atehm0tfe2itetrl2eieo,hoaenMnnae.srr1A.i5nsNmugbe,onmpedemiettiditteiLSod.untpRehproel,enmsuqapeumnoitlenal.ol1mF4teooHsrtmtioiofwanilee,dOvwefoafrins,r In the Resolution dated July 20, 2022,16 the Court granted the petitioner's Motion for Leave, and admitted all of the latter's offered exhibits. On August 11, 2022, the Supplemental Memorandum For Petitioner was submitted. 17 Respondent, however, failed to ftled his supplemental memorandum. 18 In the Resolution dated September 20, 2022,19 the present case was deemed submitted anew for decision. THE ISSUES STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES wit: The parties stipulated the following issues for this Court's resolution, to Lnuigllhifty' "i4na.0bp0or.otatv.leis,Wicoanhn,etaphneedrrtaktiehngiissn,gHi ntooRnoMthraeCbelNexocCi.soe9u0tr-a2tx0h1ra2as.tejuorinsd'iScatnionMtiog iteealoxlnmectDgiiotsaeulelelcnydte4tam.xao0tofn0boP.debn8ar/.3o3'r,Sr10ea,Wf1wnu29rnh0,Mo9d1en2i3tggh6b.fe.yLu2rli1ltgyphhaeestct'iohBtfliaoluoverrncietnetahegruedbSpoefaerefnornimIoMnedrteriagofrnrunndoeaemlloouvBRJsearlernyevpwu,eaaeneixrdruycyeeb1syIo,sni2fvci0t.et1lhay3iess, wNiRniIetRvbheo,Cnta,tun4laeed.s0M0ava.nmicoed.mleanitoniWdvreaechdnaeondbtfuyh,imestRhrdAeCtihreie1erxcc0ptut3alrl5xyea1srrscaaNotpnenordtoo.rvatf9hidP0sei2i-cro20etno0f.5sor1y7r2oeftpfnooSeorreatcln'iSvttdiaeaolrnniidnsM.p1c,.4eo.i.c3gnvis"foLiisefitgdtehhnietnt' " Minutes of the hearing held on April 6, 2022, Docket -Vol. 2, p. 885. Docket - Vol. 2, pp. 886 to 894. 14 15 Records Verification Report dated June 20, 2022, Docket- Vol. 2, p. 900. 16 Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 897 to 899. 17 Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 901 to 906. 18 Recvrd.r Verification Report dated Court, Docket -Vol. 2, p. 908. September 8, 2022 issued by the Judicial Records Division of this !9 Docket - Vol. 2, p. 910.

CTA Case No. 8955 San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs. CommiJsioner o/Internal Revenue Page 5 of21 4.00.d. Whether Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 90- 2012 was issued without prior notice and hearing to the Petitioner."20 Petitioner's arguments: Petitioner argues that the excise tax of P20.57 per liter specified in Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 90-2012 for "San Mig Light" (SML) is direcdy contradictory to, inconsistent with, and violative of, the express provisions of Section 143 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 10351, and is therefore not valid; and that the aforesaid tax rate is not valid on the additional ground that RMC No. 90- 2012 was issued without hearing and prior notice to petitioner in utter disregard of the due process clause provision of the Constitution and the process is required by the Administrative Code of 1987. Moreover, petitioner claims that respondent has not presented any evidence to refute or rebut the overwhelming evidence adduced by petitioner; that it is entided to a refund in the amount ofP83,019 ,273.64, as validated by the Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA), representing erroneous, illegal, and/or wrongful collection from, and overpayment by, petitioner in excise taxes for the period from January 1, 2013 up to December 31, 2013; and that the arguments raised by respondent in his Answer to the Petitionfor Review are baseless and without merit. Respondent's counter-arguments: Respondent contends the instant Petition is not warranted to be given due course for lack of jurisdiction; that the nullification of the P20.57 excise tax rate specified in RMC No. 90-2012 does not fall under the special jurisdiction granted by statute to this Court; that collateral attack on a presumably valid administrative issuance is not allowed; that this Court has no jurisdiction to determine the validity of the P20.57 provision of RMC No. 90-2012 due to petitioner's non- exhaustion of administrative remedies; that petitioner is not entided to a tax refund because there was no erroneous or illegal collection of excise taxes; and that claims for refund are construed stricdy against the taxpayer and in favor of the government. THE COURT'S RULING The present Petition for Review is pardy meritorious./ 20 Joint Stipulation ofi:IJds, Documen!J, hsuu, and Other Mattm; Docket- Vol. 1, p. 395.

CTA Case No. 8955 San Miguel Brewery, lm�. vs. Commissioner ciflnterna! Revenue The Court En Bane has already resolved the first issue, and its resolution has already become the law of the case. be addressed herein. Thus, the said first issue will no longer Nonetheless, for an orderly disposition of this case, this Court shall jointly address the aforequoted third and fourth stipulated issues. RMCNo. 90-2012is void, not only for Jack ofprior notice and hearing to petitioner, but also because it contravenes the law it seeks to implement. Whether prior notice and hearing is required would depend on the classification ofRMC No. 90-2012, rule. as either a legislative rule or an interpretative In The Philippine Stock Exchange, Inc., et aL vs. Secretary ofFinance, et a/.,21 the Supreme Court held as follows: "The issue boils down to the characterization of the questioned regulations: specifically whether they are legislative rules or interpretative rules. The right to due process guaranteed by the Constitution encompasses substantive and procedural due process. Substantive due process pertains to government's denial or restriction on the right to life, liberty, or property; procedural due process pertains to the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. While the right has no exact definition, the standard in determining whether a person was accorded due process is whether the restriction on the person's life, liberty, or property is consistent with fairness, reason, and justice, and free from caprice and arbitrariness. As applied to procedural due process, the question to be asked is whether the person was given sufficient notice and opportunit:y to be heard. Then applying the concept of procedural process to the administrative issuances in this case, the inquiry pertains to whether the questioned regulations require prior notice and hearing for their validit:y.~ zt G.R. No. 213860,July 5, 2022.

CTA Case No. 8955 San Miguel Brewery, Int~ vs. Commissioner ifInternal Revenue Page 7 o�21 But first, &public v. Drugmaker's L:iboratories, Inc. 22 summarizes the different kinds of administrative regulations: An administrative regulation may be classified as a legislative rule, an interpretative rule, or a contingent rule. Legislative rules are in the nature of subordinate legislation and designed to implement a primary legislation by providing the details thereof. They usually implement existing law, imposing general, extra-statutory obligations pursuant to authority properly delegated by Congress and effect a change in existing law or policy which affects individual rights and obligations. Meanwhile, interpretative rules are intended to interpret, clarify or explain existing statutory regulations under which the administrative body operates. Their purpose or objective is merely to construe the statute being administered and purport to do no more than interpret the statute. Simply, they try to say what the statute means and refer to no single person or party in particular but concern all those belonging to the same class which may be covered by the said rules. Finally, contingent rules are those issued by an administrative authority based on the existence of certain facts or things upon which the enforcement of the law depends. mtcaIpiCswsomnldpuraoohtmirepecrpmniecerofiporgnypinaltefsr,irrehsiseeLectymotatsrreantruasdalehgtteeiidenieievnvgsxldattetleeiphienaisgnltearbrltdaiuaapgigooisvltrnteednttieieashnoayoate,tfencnlruxtofohyuteipseoosenblctetebaftiyrsbistntalstlheiuagtepgaeiiettgnnrurasesaioeg.dottt,secativilf.Tahotatvaiiuidneldihtnltfdmirsieoiovgnunirhriergnyagpmapilipunisrnutndtroehoerr,sgwtperfuiuheaagoesaldredhrsauenet.etdablitsiteoonenoagTndtrttriisaoelahdossnpinlbieluadunsadjtyntee,rhauidpcdptveitteomehorueitrvreoborlpteorwselliciiftugiegthnos.aaiymaitspmcnedtlaThreatifoeporcntrhtroitneiontethoemlsyotyeynaa.,, Then, the general rule is that administrative regulations must co mply with the requirements of the Code of 198723 on prior notice, hearing, and Administrative validity. Section 9, Chapter 2, Book VII of the C publication for ode provides for the requirement of notice and hearing when practicable if not required by law/ 22 728 Phil. 480 (2014). " Executive Order No. 292, Entitled "INSTITUTING THE 'ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987'." Enacted: July 25, 1987.

CTA Case No. 8955 San Miguel Brewery, Im~ vs. Commissioner if Internal &venue Page 8 of21 Section 9. Public Partidpation. - (1) If not otherwise required by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule. xxxx Interpretative rules, however, are an exception from the requirement of public participation, or prior notice and hearing. When an administrative rule is merely interpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance, for it gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. But surely, if the interpretative regulation substantially increases the burden of those governed, public participation and publication are a must, thus: Accordingly, an administrative regulation can be construed as simply interpretative or internal in nature, dispensing with the requirement of publication, when its applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance, for it gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. When, however, the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can facilitate or render least cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord to least to those directly affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter, to be duly informed, before that new issuance is given the force and effect of law. In fine, the gauge on determining if a regulation requires prior notice and hearing is its substance or content. Prior notice and hearing are required if the regulation substantially increases the burden of those governed, notwithstanding its nomenclature-despite the regulation being called or designated as interpretative. Thus, if the questioned regulation here in this case are legislative rules or substantially increase the burden of those governed, they should have undergone prior notice and hearing (which, in rhis case, are undisputedly absent) for their validity. If they are interpretative rules, prior notice and hearing are not essential for their validity. Here, the Court finds that the questioned regulations are not mere interpretative issuances; they are legislative in nature that change, if not increase, the burden ofthose governed. Notice and hearing are thus required for their validityi-/

CTA Case No. 8955 San Miguel Bnwery, lnf. vs. Commissioner qf Internal Revenue Page 9 of21 XXX XXX XXX atcanhdnoodednteiddcq)esuuucIabentnssndttfaioinonhtetniei,caaeelrtdhianebngrueqdrpgudhrueeiesolnaatrsitrotiinooonenngdtshpetrrhaeiirgoroeuserelnattaothgcioietosmnrvseseeufrnosanthrn.eeodcu.eTvldhaoenihFdyda.o"viprmeupfuba(onlEisidlmceueadprrtheginaoosenntewose, On the basis of the foregoing jurisprudential pronouncements, RMC No. 90-2012 should be treated as a legislative rule. RMC No. 90-201224 provides as follows: atstitP1O1hORthninuhn9ou4edetgtienr9irhb2sglpotup7s,eoaienBAadou,arcsdc1iuwsuabltdle"ca4eecclrrsclioT3sdsoeAismelc,c'edhahpo,aancaros1bimurAteaiKnss,nl4oa.tficeug4tntdfCrsatnIefh,ieaeonuancrdietdNdrd1wcaaceditccit4rhtetdoalnuouTs5diers.porn)l,eoeaeBaAr2n1sbir8rctoy0p0cssh,aco1,3eeficeoRTs0cr51aedcrt31lif2ehioehcpmd1f,vp0ecoereie1u'lipPchAnrAac0bNotorecregnlionrepblliavtacsdtddatAreyesouiunirsoirAccJ,2icnitvdnsfeta8thaceia/lsssn8cRaetyosluaututBereeNtbtohIarsiastyndeoufrtvootxtrnytebeA.csuiRrybnrwaaco1mena9scet,oropet3auocfe2eruofl3rorrmn0nsiabrt4dnRd1pehtlap,seeig3ireytecrrtnoA,avhsiTegbsdttoeeAensehoeuncfbdmSpc.eecur"aapeftrteeisfEclFsrboeneNc(toxotdEceCidothoovctdrmufhioani.tiovcslpdodtOsueineth8wlteednsyat41Tathedst2Obbh4oenraehe4ye1syexfdrrfe,, effect Relative to alcohol products, Section 3 of RA No. 10351,25 which took on January 5, 2013,26 reads, in part, as follows/ "24ORRPSREETUAPOVHBNUDEJEEBNURACLUCTPCITCE:UTSRCARPBa8OA"CROEmY4AemTDSS2ven4EeTEniA,sNnSdRAeMd.eOOOdUcidnEttT.FChgBNaReT8xy1Sre4DUw9eRRs29IctRi4aerN7st,utipIe,eoNGcusnOAtbKGusoSlTrSinfci1HEonATA4AgwEC1lHMcc,RnTToEt1EWIhhNA4ONoe2EoIslN,SD.EXaSE1T9nExC43dhcD3I31eKiTS,s44eNoE1,B1N,bA4OTYaa4Tn1taWc,i4dxARoc12noNEXF4,Oa5PPol1,nrrUAO4oI8O3SBndA,N,ttuLel1hTcc13rIeotAnC41Hsrha4LPUEol,AAClunRn1CrONdAd4peTe5voHAnr2,esdNO8TRne88suIeOLT,"Oepoo.1uNbAf3Cb9a1ARlN3ocic3edLcDAp4eoAu,NIcbOPTANtDlriONfNTcodBoED21Au.89RAcc891NFCtt70sO,3NCAO5BROaoLF1sy., 26 ODfRiferetdcepeeeurnmbNlb(i1coe5r.A)22cd09ta0,Ny,1sos9e.f8rr16ioe0;ms3a5on1tfdhw1eA9as8rsat7iipc)du,lebdthla2ietsehosae(fidpdtuhinRresAtuChaeitnvoMtioltkaConeoiTfldafaeenBcaotudflaol,enthteiJentaanoP!.unhaviDslri.ypeTp5cui,evnm2eer0sab1,,e3are.st2. 1aam,!2.,e0Gn1d.2Re.d.TNhbuyos.E, Lcxo-e6uc3un9tti1ivn5eg,

CTA Case No. 8955 San Miguel Brewery, !nt: vs. Commissioner r.flnterna! Revenue "SEC. 3. Section 143 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended by Republic Act No. 9334, is hereby further amended to read as follows: 'SEC. 143. Fermented Liquors. - There shall be levied, assessed and collected an tax on beer, lager beer, ale, porter and excise other fermented liquors except tuba, basi, tapf!Y and similar fermented liquors in accordance with the following schedule: 'Effective on January 1, 2013 '(a) If the net retail price (excluding the excise tax and the value-added tax) per liter of volume capacity is Fifty pesos and sixty centavos (P50.60) or less, the tax shall be Fifteen pesos (P15.00) per liter; and vexocluisme'e(tbac)xapIafanctdihteythneisevtmarloeutreae-ialtdhpdareincdeFtai(fxetx)ycpplueerdsiolnistgeartnhodef sixty centavos (P50.60), the tax shall be Twenty pesos (P20.00) per liter. XXX XXX XXX the The net retail price shall be determined by Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) through a price survey under oath. XXX XXX XXX The proper tax classification of fermented liquors, whether registered before or after the effectivity of this Act, shall be determined every two (2) years from the date of effectivity of this Act. All fermented liquors existing in the market at the time of the effectivity of this Act cptshohreiancldellaustbceatesnetddcplbtrahyisecsteihtfaeisxeuBdrrvauaterecyescaoopufrrodotfivhnliendgtefeedtmoramabtelohnRveteeenvdbeealtnsiuqereude.otoarinsl XXX XXX xxx." (Emphases and underscoring added) ;./

CTA Case No. 8955 San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs. Commissioner o/Interna! Revenue Pagellof21 ovafeefcrsctmthoeeedrndfoIteitennrdmigsthelcteinolqteBueatIdorhRrfels,irqwoneumhxeoiitrcststhhricneecogtlafanoisdalrstueipfcgtirthcoieaeicdnteigotbsinymparstenohhvdoeoiuslftalihdotttehneberse.tatbehxafafsetrecadttthieovesintmyptharoenofdvlaaiRtdteeAestdtopNrtihcocle.aerses1suii0fnry3v,5ea1iyls,l In turn, part of Annex "A-1" of RMC No. 90-2012 states the net retail price of SML (per the 2010 BIR Price Survey), and prescribes the applicable excise tax rate per liter for SML, vit: "Annex 'A-1' LIST OF BRANDS OF LOCALLY MANUFACTURED FERMENTED LIQUORS As of December 2012 I. List of Brands Based on 2010 BIR PriceS --.- NET RETAIL Applicable Excise Tax BRAND TYPE OF CONTENT PRICE (Based Rate Per Liter PACKAGING PER TYPE on 2010 BIR (Effective NAME/ Price Survey) January 1, Product OF Description PACKAGING Per Liter 2013) (in milliliter) A. NRP is P50.60 per liter and below San Mig Light XXX XXX XXX bottle I 330 I 47.99 20.57 XXX XXX XXX B. NRP is more than P50.60 San Mig Light XXX XXX XXX 61.51 20.57 (Emphases added) can 330 , XXX XXX XXX big"oactnuAhrdantareped-ndtra1ihtptesc"iieurnniotebtgnyNShtojaaMeeofltactritthLoevanthoabbe,domtflla/si,yrsagoeu,sttarwlhhtgieteneiooihorluovlpanloerssbrsdaerfe,rnissbedatcesugehtrhdpueilcaoebpl(odawaipplntmnsearintgmsoer,iitnnsmoditeceh,iennsounertttmlterhteaahadderrepteleinypavsfpRtslaueapiaAmcnareriadttlilebiyestNolsgi,cseoufilouRsanapb.eliMneaexmstrcttc1i)ai,Oevi0.tsnie3teothN5imrnaet1uoalea.llx.Breyy.9iIrnc0aRIbBhnt-tee2aehan0epcftcg1ahtefeoce2arodtnt,rvlosmiaiiirtassndes-iroieantar-fficvemtoerldieresxaigamcySAisia,ssepM slneeaonvttsthiLaeeaveennxxes- Corresponclingly, RMO No. 90-2012, with its Annexes, should have undergone prior notice and hearing for its va lidi/

CTA Case No. 8955 San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs. Commissioner qf Internal Revenue vcndopooroiesintttdpoiidc.trgiueooivcvnaIetenenndirdtostoh"thsdiiricseiddreaeecrnfaoaiounrsnttepgder,oedwcshpeietbaievisaoyteirntaiirinnneowdygsnipetnehpeoorrdtn'riisecodsedwrpeooenticnfottthn.eteieotaAsbsrRsyisin,sMgsrsMeuauCscnsap.hdn9o,cN0wine-ato,2dsme0Renm1naMo2tyti.gCoLb'iv~re.7eNntRTchoothoeh.nine9scBqo0lIutpu-Reip2dslo.0letori1dtm,uF2nttoohiietsnraysytttftihoafnwiieobelrauedesrphfertoenihartooaroerdtt ptbhryoeRvaiMspipIoOnlnicsaNanibonyl.teer9ov0ede-xnu2ctc0i,se1iedt2m,tbaoyuxnsRtrtAhabteeeNpaofpoo.eirnr1et0qeli3udt5eoo1rtu.efdtotArhanStnMtehxLe,""Aaard-ed1i"tniotonhtaelrionebobaf,gcapctoairrotdnicsu"wilmaitrhplyotsoheend lSPnllbiiitM5etyqee0turRLr.ro6i,esAir0tinal.niBeNsitlsHhacosPpseao.5erosfiw01derci.0xee6mote3vh0npd5oeee1ortrahr,,enrmeeAleltifeohttanfeseaubnrrscneno;eottvtxiaatvfhoeinl"ev-efdAqPopoautlr-2nmhuio10cemJt"oe.ea5eeoudnp7xnfucSec,RtaairerrpsoMecyelafgtiPcitC1atoeia5,rtrnxdyN20lo01.eoso61f4sh.f033sav9t.,loohol0tlefh-fbu2wetefmh0eehe1Perxem22Nctc0hieiasIm.enepR0rtap0eCttcaodhipxstoeeylesifnsrhqo1eaeul9ftilxotl9rcetreb7hiriste,es,aeaiPimslftna1epaoxr5crmmri.aoe0cseee0nentnhppdttthaheeeeenderdr ecitnhfofseneoccpftera.rornIvteaiidsssi.otthnhTeeohnuficSsml,eepcatohtriestoihntsaiao1tmn4R3eMoomfCfuteNhsxetocbiN.se9eI0Rs-ttaC2rux0co1kfo21n,d9wo9Siw7tMhn, a,LAs,anannamdsexesnah"daAfleled"rhmtbahyveeenRretAneodofN, felooixq.rpcu1aeo0nr3ad,5ne1idds, ipww1lmer4iige3lptlvihosaaolstailfhiwlttAieitoavohpypvernesreoomropNbvofReaIisnseRM,rixdeoCtcaCsaniotxsseoleN.vof2aeto8fda1d.xtm9hAi99noie07ndn-l,fima2saSaw0tvisrMn1oabia2trsLeom,tocrrpaeasafsanuttriasdahvtreieeecefdeaubrnrlnbeamayogsyreilrtucyenalssaatlAaueltliawdlnootmwn.inln2iese9eqgxndumdSdo"iuetrusAod.ccsh"rtbeebtyxpahlepaweRinanraAcnegyydostNfbh,obeoerrte.ewclc1iaaenos0teine3vnh,t5eratS1ahrtecmoemct ttotiuwthonhseonyet Finding the invalidity of RMO No. 90-2012, We shall proceed to determine the propriety of the present refund clai~ 27 Transcript o f Stenographic N ote s at the hearing held on Ja nuary 26, 2016, Docket- Vol. 252. CommiSJioner vs. f<ortune Tobat'v Cotporation, G.R. Nos. 167274-75, July 21, 2008. " t f Internal Revenue "I d.

CTA Case No. 8955 San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs. Commissioner '![Internal &venue Goveming provisions for refund claims. Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997 read: and "SEC. 204. Authori!J rif the Commissioner to Compromise/Abate Refund or Credit Ta:x:es.- The Commissioner may- XXX XXX XXX wraCpstprpehhferruetotaivoauenrtmteclrtoralenhnhlfmnttuabaiohsevef(iceeCflesselisrased)ap,itbidielmaCmoaaelsmonnerytpsrewfdnephmouod,rsosecrrieiewdaettwncnidnooicrtuhhdnernlweianegdo.rsnriieilftmetdefaNhtdtusoinhohssnofrecuuoedyorrtnrtceehvttfrctafaaaeieieuurrtxxorednetetpfnhadidosoar,tox.ireryer"rtoptemriupurotrad(syroEereyeern,nnnmreeeeeaatrremfpdeonulfhtsffuudnayiohuinsnls:danrrelidlysedsgPlcofarwohouioftdbaonrhnvidtentdiiedeadlhwgdlexeccive)tdrneghooa,iusaenlnthtulniisowldorneyuiwirdogvtseroieevapeo(wrefldc2erenue,iin)desntibvtayththuayeeelamatpdsratittnhorehpoaeasansesrl spcaaot-rurorenufN eomcytdhcohaieavhoomtnevear"hdyrseaiSasyitnsunbEybpnoige,Cebteeefomee.onnrraneraann2powylpey2atfdrrrb9yianoduroe.naclonyumcteynRgilneoefeaafsddlcnuioiuionieemaulvnmdtrlleasygrepiliwyndyanrscoiehltrootledatihertlferl,loglnsteTiwehtlbacaldehohetelxeegratCrmdtoavdeEho,lauevnhelmire-yurnaoenmnbtonvsaautseeeriisio.selnensubsenesaoite!dosatJesncxscinelenuoaodhrrecil;amelhxobn!ercJrtyuceiaefeattcoxgscefao,rssotdiuipl!euvlJrcereerehnwctfClaautyfisollentoutllohdlyedreirt,goc,ttooeuioeohnddrrrret. epoCmoararfofraytomtecmyhnrrmeeeetodnhiItusitaneatssxrwileaoyaionxasnnprsyepeyaiprmritadecmaaxna.ta"ad,isafyoee(tlw,E,net,yremhsnoveuproerfhceentahgspwsuawoeaporcsnyiadhtam(yhld2temhosde)sueeunesydtitn)etof:ataafoPcrwarearspornppvfioytiredrtfoaeesomdrnutcs,hpecehtceleohaldwrreieevmeiavntredeulgnrtyar,hintsneethorgueoaTpfchfloolahaprnuavb,ateseryweembffhtuieheitlnechenahnddett omroeffusptsphtoaebnyTedmcelhfaenleiinetmtadbfoieowsffrioemtt-rhaqeaixnun,fodialttaihetntwedogropicytrls(oa2aivj)nmu-idysdaieinocjautnirarsrmliesacdgurlilesacetitmcmilofeeinrawnsartt:ilat,rwhfyailintetphhdeeiarnntichotouwdaus.dormtTts(h2iinem)oifyseCtellrioaaanwrutesir.svtfserBcooacmofnltatnhhitmohectelfaiwtdlaiimaikntteghse ~

CTA Case No. 8955 San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs. Commiuioner qflnternal &venue Page 14 of21 stIchutoapigstenwriitvzoebarnnetihcnfeylgieotcodfasauwtsrjieeuthsdtsiihnctaihattawlmtcoaalasy(i2mfa)orriyfsoetehararersfejtueffurdronipcmdaiayflpmlicaeleydanmimet.ei",tn3ht0taexor flpartwhemeevatateuxnr ely or out of time. explicitly provides "regardless of any sbleeiyrmvroisielondamerowMaeusioostphlfreyfeocioouctvteriserislrithl,laelaegtvguataithlnJoley.gr3yc1nofaoolulreatechugtoteohrdiiont.yrgi,tAyopnrtroo"uevplerloSrvonylonpntehsroeouptsaaelxorlot,rywoilnrleoogtthnaelesutwabrxjhe"eiccciosthvtdeioseryftsianoxemoadtfeiaoosntat,ohxnoeeesrr Thus, for the pptiarmiedesleaynretfic"leleadrirmiotsnfoeroer furuesnfoudnrcdillalteiogmap,lr"io.tsmpeurs,tpleiktietwioinseerpmrouvset not only establish that it has that the subject excise taxes Petitioner timely filed its administrative andjudicial claims. ttpeaaxrxxocaidsobuenlceFttsdaodxofrormemiosxmeecspiststatiehiicdcetapppxbrlryaooocdndetuhudocecofttmsspmredfaosrnedtoipuumcfecapnttcirdhotounsedr.uepoHcrlntaesocntirehcneeopg,rfdetopnhadreetuorecaddleoau,rtftcehbtaeioceotrffnueoptYaruaelrynrmreeismmenfooltivveoaadllfaeoonxffdcttithhsheeee tnrahefoemotrcoefovr-roqaTrmule"hosutptoeshofd,enttdhdShieaeentcgettraieexwocxanhkcbsieolsenne2i0dnttah4ogxe(mCowpe)fesatrsatithcnipendapeitrdn2wo.t2doe9uxc(cs2tishs)-eoyfuretoaladxmr prbterehteuesfrcrpnroliapmwctaievstehofelfpiepeddrraoiatodendudcou/tfnoiodr"neaw;rchtatunehandel fydelexiaeacteriisstswefaartIaosdnxmmmetshiant;eh3di3seepatrrsnoaeadtnisidevaJcneadttnauauctanealadlsryoeyjr,rue2duimn,inc2toi2i0alv0l1Je13cad3l.na,iuitpSmsaeurbstyceifhte2oior,brnp2erer0ionre1gd5fful,tiuechadtetnstEcdfharxe~oscemies,aepritleTsietapistxlti,aoRnwnteeisttur,h3r4hinntashdweanthewdiacorphlia(et2isod)t "' Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.r. San Miguel Cotporation, et seq., G.R. Nos. 180740 and 180910, November 11,2019. �11 32 EB"CcECPixaoxot-hmcihm9noimi.bgmbl1oiiii"stttdsshsssiteoiP"oo"nPldnePa"-eernP-1rf5rt-io1,jn.9lf1.Mlni1.n"t4t"itea8oetrtnr7nonond"aap,"a"llruPPaRRoen--eve15dvvPi1.eed4ln"n.ae91uPund12ee-t""1,ivv,n..s0ra..."nB1SPPda"iLl-ni6DApto.iM1naCa""viK.gPraut'-oSSoe1hlP0Le"Cl.lPA4alonP-7pW6toe7,.tr5"rraDo;1etliP0esIoup"Conme,l,Toc"CeIttPiPOovs-tlepd7Naqo.yn.1Ar,.ta",sRtuSiotpYaonrn,,a"GFF.Pie.-fRr7tnh..4aNE9n8odd".iot,1iPo"8nlP8a,4-n8p9t.,.714,S"A8ta6t.po.rR"iolP2s-5a8,.P42l90a01n"2t,,, 33 J4

CTA Case No. 8955 San Miguel Brewery, lm: vs. Commissioner qflnternal Revenue Page 15 o�21 Clearly, petitioner's administrative claim for refund flied on December 9, 2014,35 and the judicial claim for refund flied before this Court on December 19, 2014,36 both fell within the two (2)-year prescriptive period. Correspondingly, petitioner timely filed its administrative and judicial claims. This Court shall now proceed to rule on whether the claim for refund in the amount of P83,019,296.21 represents erroneous or illegal excise taxes paid by petitioner covering the year 2013, thereby resolving the second issue as stipulated by the parties herein for this Court's resolution. The (reduced) amount of P83,018,504.21 represents erroneous excise taxes paid by petitioner covering the year 2013. Petitioner alleges that during the period from January 1, 2013 up to December 31, 2013, in order that it will be able to make removals of its SML without penalty, it was constrained to pay, as required by the BIR, excise taxes on its removals of SML in botde, can and kegs, at the tax rate of P20.57 per liter, when it should have paid only P20.00 and P15.00 per liter, for SML in botde/in can and in kegs, respectively, as provided for in Section 143 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended by RA No. 10351. This Court agrees with petitioner. To stress, pursuant to Section 143 of the NIRC of 1997, as last amended by RA No. 10351, the excise tax rates that should have been imposed, for the year 2013, are only P20.00 and P15.00 per liter, for SML in botde/in can and in kegs, respectively, instead of P20.57 per liter. Hence, it is evident that the difference between the said amounts, i.e., P0.57 per liter for SML in botde/in can and P5.57 per liter for SML in kegs, have been erroneously, illegally, excessively and/or wrongfully collected from petitioner by the BIR. The said differences amounting to P0.57 and P5.57 per liter yielded a total amount of P83,019,296.21,37 which is the subject of the present claim, broken down as follows: SML Removals (in Liters) Excise Tax~ and Paid Bottles (ii) P20.57 2013 and Cans I Ke2s I Total Liters "Exhibits "P-1" to "P-1-aa", Docket- Vol. 1, pp. 56 to 86. ~ 36 Petitionfor Review, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 14 to 34. "Exhibit "P-4", Annex At, Docket- Vol. 1, p. 436.

CTA Case No. 8955 San Miguel Brewery, lnt: vs. CommisJioner ofInternal Revenue _lanua_!Y_ 11,510,825.04 94,000.00 11,604,825.04 I' 238,711,251.13 February 9,557,547.12 54,790.00 9,612,337.12 197,725,774.56 March 10,491,917.04 60,520.00 10,552,437.04 217,063,629.91 April 11,731,880.16 75,570.00 11,807,450.16 242,879,249.79 May 11,661,708.96 72,320.00 11,734,028.96 241,368,975.71 10,769,014.08 73,990.00 10,843,004.08 223,040,593.93 June 10,666,671.84 77,740.00 10,744,411.84 221,012,551.55 July 10,317,993.84 83,500.00 10,401,493.84 213,958,728.28 August 10,296,356.40 71,490.00 10,367,846.40 213,266,600.45 September 10,961,604.72 102,050.00 11,063,654.72 227,579,377.59 October 12,321,936.00 75,590.00 12,397,526.00 255,017,109.82 November 15,956,123.04 120,820.00 16,076,943.04 330,702,718.33 December Total per 136,243,578.24 962,380.00 137,205,958.24 I' 2,822,326,561.05 Petition SHOULD BE Excise Taxes for January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 Sbould~he Excise T!}Xes Excise tax@ @ 1'20.00 and 1'15.00 1'20.00 for Bottles 2,724,871,564.80 14,435,700.04 38 and Cans 136,243,578.24 136,243,578.24 I' 2,739,307,264.84 Excise tax@ I' 83,019,296.21 1'15.00 for Kegs 136,243,578.24 962,380.00 962,380.00 Sub-total 962,380.00 137,205,958.24 Claim for Over- payment of Excise Taxes, per Petition To support its claim, petitioner adduced in evidence, among others, the following documents, which were all examined and verified by the Court- commissioned ICPA, Ms. N ormita L. Villaruz of Villaruz, Villaruz & Co., CPAs, vz:c Brewery Plant Documents Exhibits Polo, Valenzuela; Movement Reports with Allocated Deposits "P-11.1" to"P-11.12" San Fernando, Pampanga; Sta. Rosa, Laguna; Excise Tax Returns and related documents "P-5.1" to "P-5.491" Bacolod City, Negros Official Register Books "P-12.1" to "P-12.342" Occidental; Excise Taxpayer's Removal Declarations "P-12.343" to "P-12.4,982" Mandaue City, Cebu; and Shipping Memorandums "P-18.1" to "P-18.5,254" Davao City Issue/Receipt Documents "P-18.5,255" to "P-18.5,470" Polo, Valenzuela Excise Tax Returns and related docwnents "P-6.1" to "P-6.510" Excise Taxpayer's Removal Declarations and "P-13.1" to "P-13.340" SanFernando,Pampanga Daily and 1\1onthly Sworn Statements of the Volume of Removals "P-19.1" to "P-19.8,961" Sta. Rosa, Laguna Shipping Memorandums "P-19.8,962" to "P-19.9,059" Gate Passes and Claim Memorandums "P-7.1" to "P-7.498" Excise Tax Returns and related documents "P-14.1" to "P-14.1,106" Excise Taxpayer's Removal Declarations and Daily and Monthly Official Register Books -- " With 1"0.04 rounding-off difference.

CTA Case No. 8955 San Miguel Bnwery, lnf. vs. Commissioner ifInternal Revenue Page 17 of21 Shipping I\.femorandums and "P-20.1" to "P-20.1,381" "P-8.1" to "P-8.490" Bacolod City, Negros Stock Transfer Receipts "P-15.1" to "P-15.336" Occidental Excise Tax Returns and related documents "P-21.1" to "P-21.3,827" Mandaue City, Cebu Excise Taxpayer's Removal Declarations, "P-9.1" to "P-9.487" Revenue Officer on Premise's "P-16.1" to "P-16.336" Davao City Official Register Books Weekly Reports and "P-22.1" to "P-22.2,993" "P-10.1" to "P-10.477" Shipping 1\Iemorandums and "P-17.1" to "P-17.315" Delivery Receipts "P-23.1" to "P-23.2,059" Excise Tax Returns and related documents Official Delivery Invoices, and Official Register Books Shipping Memorandums and Delivery Receipts Excise Tax Returns and related documents 0 fficial Delivery Invoices, Official Register Books and Reports on Excise Tax Payments and Applications Shipping Memorandums and Gate Passes 32Pp90e21t0i3,t3i,o7fnA5oe,rs0r'a7sla3lp,b9de0yte0or.tn2apo7lrt,oeddfoAurbcdyttvshatefhnoepcreeaIrCliloPodEAfxcitcoisinvsseeihxrien(r6gT)rJaepaxplnaounrattsrDydiesa1ptb,eord2soi0ktS1see3np tember 22, 2015, amounting to to December 31, down as follows: Brewe_ry_ Plant Annex per Amount i Polo, Valenzuela ICPARepon p I B, 3,503,800,000.01 I San Fernando, Pampanga Sta. Rosa, Laguna B, 7,507,351,000.16 I Bacolod City, N egros Occidental B, Mandaue City, Cebu B, 1,626,409,900.04 Davao City Bs Bo 1,217,204,000.02 1 4,606,155,000.02 I Total Advance Excise Tax Deposits 1,914,154,000.02 ' P20,375,073,900.27 . On sfthrotoohPmwe2s0to,ht3theh7ae0tsri,tx8h5he(16ac),n6od9pm,2la.p7npu7test,teistfduiroomenmxmecriJas'sareinztuMaeaxdoreyvasse1dmf,uo2eell0noo1twn3sRt:th4eo1epDoreretmceowmviatbhleorAf3al1llol,2cb0aet1ee3dr Deposit40 products amounted Brewery Plant Amount I Polo, Valenzuela San Fernando, Pampanga p 3,504,491,142.32 ' Sta. Rosa, Laguna Bacolod Ci_ty, Negros Occidental 7,520,357,475.18 ' Mandaue City, Cebu Davao City 1,624,594,019.12. Total 1,216,186,644.99 4,589,090,693.49 1,916,131,717.67 P20,370,851,692. 77 �19 Exhibit "P-4", Findings an d Observ a t io n s , IIA.l.1.2, Docket- Vol. 1, ,#' Exhibits "P-11 .1" to "P- 11 .12". �� p. 417. 41 Exhibit "P-4", Findings and Observations, II.A.2.2.1, Docket- Vol. 1, p. 418.

CTA Case No. 8955 San Miguel Brewery, Im~ vs. Commissionertiflnternal Revenue Page 18 o�21 Furthermore, the ICPA examined petitioner's balance of excise tax advance payments carried from the previous return and the excise tax payments/deposits made in the year 2013, then compared the same with all the removals/applications of the excise taxes for the same year, to wit:42 Plant Beginning Total Payment of Less: Total Excise Outstanding Outstanding Variance Polo, Balance of Advance Excise Tax Taxes due on removals Balance of Balance of 'P0.03 Valenzuela Advance Excise Deposits for the period of ALL Beer Products Advance Excise San Tax Deposits per covered]anuary 1, 2013 Advance Excise Tax Deposits, 0.10 Jlemando, Excise Tax to December 31, 2013 per Monthly Tax Deposits, December 31, 0.06 Pampanga Returns, Movement Report December 31, 2013, per Sta. Rosa, December 31, 1' 3,503,800,000.01 Excise Tax 0.16 I' 3,504,491,142.32 2013, as (0.01) J~una 2012 co~ t e d Returns 0.07 Bacolod 1' 7,537,136.21 I' 6,845,993.90 I' 6,845,993.87 0.41 City, 17,541,943.85 7,507,351,000.16 7,520,357,475.18 4,535,468.83 4,535,468.73 NC!-,l'fOS 3,120,683.24 1,626,409,900.04 1,624,594,019.12 4,936,564.16 4,936,564.10 Occidental 4,052,461.20 1,217,204,000.02 1,216,186,644.99 Mandauc 5,069,816.23 5,069,816.07 City, Cebu 6,986,806.48 4,606,155,000.02 4,589,090,693.49 9,100,946.35 1,914,154,000.02 1,916,131,717.67 24,051,113.01 24,051,113.02 Davao City 48,339,977.33 20,375,073,900.27 20,370,851,692.77 7' 123,228.70 7,123,228.63 Total 52,562,184.83 52,562,184.42 Based on the foregoing, the total amount ofP20,375,073,900.27 Advance Excise Tax Deposits for all beer products made by petitioner during the year 2013 when added to the beginning balance of P48,339,977.33 Advance Excise Tax Deposits will result to a total amount of P20,423,413,877.60. The sum is sufficient to cover the total excise taxes due per Movement Report with Allocated Deposits for all beer products for the year 2013 ofP20,370,851,692.77, and will result to an excess advance excise tax deposits ofPS2,562,184.83, as of December 31, 2013. Thus, it is established that petitioner had enough excise tax payments/deposits to cover all its removals of beer products during the year 2013. The beginning balance of deposits carried forward to January 2013 in the amount ofP48,339,977.33 can be verified through the corresponding Excise Tax Returns (ETR) [BIR Forms No. 2200-AJ 43 duly filed by the petitioner. The payments/deposits made for the year 2013 in the amount ofP20,375,073,900.27 was properly supported by ETR with Bank Payment Confirmation Forms;44 Monthly Movement Report with Allocated Deposits, as attached to the Total Removals Report and Monthly Removals Schedules duly flied and stamped "Received' by the BIR (Monthly Movement Report);45 and, Official Register Books (ORB), Excise Taxpayer's Removal Declarations (ETRD) and Swo,r..n,_.., 42 Annex D, Exhibit "P-4", Docket- Vol. 1, p. 462. 43 Exhibits "P-5.1" to "P-5.491", "P-6.1" to "P-6.510", "P-7.1" to "P-7.498", "P-8.1" to "P-8.490", "P-9.1" to "P-9.487" and "P-10.1'' to "P-10.477". 44 Exhibits "P-5.1" to "P-5.491", "P-6.1" to "P-6.510", "P-7.1" to ''P-7.498", "P-8.1" to "P-8.490", "P-9.1" to "P-9.487" and "P-10.1'' to "P-10.477". 45 Exhibits "P-11.1" to "P-11.12".

CTA Case No. 8955 San Miguel Brewery, Im: VJ". CommisJioner qflnternal &venue dcaSseotpartrtooeestmsiaptleso,nvnttoods ltiouanlfmgtdeheeexpocVoifssoeirltesutmampxoaeevisdoalfdasRunedoe,mftahospevewaetilnetsildol(iSnnaSesgRr'bt)sha,4eld6aowbnmcehegiecistnhhtnieccirnoebgnoetfba.eairnlapinnrcofeodruomcftasetixoacnnis,desuttahcxhe brPaSaeecg2umtea0murio,an3mpvls7rata0Aoler,sPdx8ynauac5yoicm1esmtf,exs6oaeR9uimnnt2neat.mitsxt9ni,hen6oaesag4vts8iatotodloscnstuuoaPemlamo2nafmp,adm8rnta2ihoEdrs2eiuex,z3dncepE2tidas6Tooie,dfifR5:nPT6,1af1t(17hrpx.o)1e,a5m2rD4teI,iCxu8cac,uetnP5hilsdAa2eoer5n(l2,Ryst1)Aaie3xxteplh1exco.esco(8r6iht4s)ad,oe,4tu7tldpaetaerPlceaxthraavneoeinestlddsadeudldsSucpaatectamsshhiodoafeCondtuhluonlataohltnlrelwiegnoseSg1t:taMoh4b9-tetalLorel Actual Excise Taxes Paid For the period covered On SML products at 1"20.5 7 January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 On Other beer products: I" 2,822,326,561.12 Tax rate at !'15.00 Tax rate at !'15.49 1 Tax rate at f>20.00 Tax rate at !'20.57 f> 13,962,300,993.96 I 3,159,928,655.48 I Total 51,041,548.80 I 315,253,933.60 I I" 17,548,525,131.84 I I P20,370,851,692.96 aetdrsohsxeuenepclcfiiohSvsoareeMmltar,tlysHLoasoxhuoispwenonhwsesvwtirep:odosvpi~EucfetieTenhrPs,gaoR2,ttn2hmEtw.he35Teie97tImrR.hC6eroD0PetmrhpA,alaiurnt'OetessdsrtrRuesrebemnBfoeclte,siofancnSStgd(ceMSSoidtMRlwhLiai)enntariwenanotmdnhenadetrordovvpelfaiaaveslrtdtetsihisjnateufinuoooscectnrfemoetoSmhroef'MesnfnpitucssttpueuthoerbepedjrppoeueoEcSnntrtixAdttppciiePnoerirsegrnsemifetoldalrTiedot'sssae,ce,xmdcuseolemeastfinafedmiDitnacleiitouilasdnyefl, "'E"Px-h1i4b.i1t,s10"P6"-1, 2"P.1-"15to.1""Pt-o12"P.3-4125".3, 3"6P"-,12"P.3-4136".1t"oto"P"-P1-21.46,.938326"",, "P-13.1" to "P-13.340", "P-14.1" to and "P-17.1" to "P-17.315". 47 E1MEC"x1x0o.h6.h1v,ii9Cbeb1imgi.tutr.e"1e"PnaPttt-o-e4R4rC""et,t,h.puTAao.Janrznbt;ntlwCheeexiu5teah.,1smC,ACuoDl.luutoon;ccttcaokotl.eCe2fdtuEt-.Dox1VzceC;oipsJla.oe.2n_sTIdJi;,tasCCpxu.(eu~E4s.,2xDCC0hJ-u.ui.1bue.1itott"onoPCrC-e4uum1"..,1tozzAv.;ancln\s.e4ox, feCtAAt).U,I DtoBoecc1e.kr4.eP12tr;-oCdVLuoScl,t.Cs1J.p,S_ep]r. to Cl.S.JZ; 48 monthly 49 452. 50 Exhibit "P-4", Par. III.B. and Annex G,,, Docket- "P-4", Par. 23m, Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 523 to 524. Vol. 1, pp. 433 and 483, respectively; Exhibit

CTA Case No. 8955 San Miguel Brewery, Inc. VJ. CommiSsioner q(Internal Revenue Sta. Rosa La~n~na Plant October 24, 2013 - Excise taxes due on complimentary SML removals per STR Nos. R4000159 and R4000160 which were inadvertently not included in the excise taxes due per ORB as filed and paid per ETR: SML removals in liters: 78,875.28 Per SM and STR 78,835.68 Per ORB and ETR 39.60 Underdeclared SML removals in liters Excise Taxes Due: 1"814.57 39.60 liters at 1"20.57 792.00 . 39.60 liters at 1"20.00 Variance p 22.57 I Nevertheless, instead of only the P22.57 (39.60 liters at P0.57) net variance on the understatement of excise taxes due on SML removals, petitioner's claim for refund shall be reduced by P792.00 (39.60 liters at P20.00), since the excise taxes due on the SML removals per ORB as ftled and paid per ETR were less than the excise taxes due on SML removals per SM, and stock transfer receipts, as shown above. In sum, petitioner has sufficiently proven that it had overpaid the excise taxes due on its removals of SML for the period January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 in the amount ofP83,018,504.21, computed as follows: Amount of Claimed Excise Tax Overpayment 1"83,019,296.21 Less: Understatement of Excise Tax Due on 39.60 liters at 1"20.00 792.00 Refundable Excise Tax Overpayment P83,0~,504.21 WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the present Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is ORDERED TO REFUND OR TO ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner in the reduced amount ofP83,018,504.21, representing overpayment of excise taxes on the "San Mig Light" removals for the period from January 1, 2013 to December 31,2013. SO ORDERED. ~.~ --v L--- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice

CTA Case No. 8955 San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs. Commissioner q[Internal Revenue I CONCUR: MARIA ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. c;t,. ~ -- \.__ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Chairperson CERTIFICATION odCefhctaihisreipooPenpruwsirnoseinuro'easnnrAotetatftocethhsAeteardttCiiicoonlnuec,rVoti.snIsiItIu,hltSeareteicobtinyoncbee1rf3toifroieefdtthhteheacCtaostehneswtciatosuntacisolsunisg,inaoenndds the Division in the above to the writer Presiding Justice