LANTRO PHILS. INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY ENBANC LANTRO PHILS. INC., CTA EB No. 3032 Petitioner, (CTA Case No. 10130) Present: -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.J., BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. )(- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -)( DECISION FERRER-FLORES, J.: The Petition for Review1 filed by Lantro Phils. Inc. (petitioner/Lantro) on December 10, 2024 seeks the reversal of the Decision promulgated on April29, 2024 (assailed Decision),2 and the Resolution dated October 31, 2024 (assailed Resolution)3 in CTA Case No. 10130, whereby the Special First Division of this Court (Court in Division) denied petitioner's claim for refund or ta)( credit certificate in the aggregate amount of i P3,949,107.91 , representing its unutilized input value-added ta)( (VAT) for the period covering January I to March 31, 2017. Rollo, pp. 9 to 25. 2 !d. at 3 1 to 78. Penned by (Ret.) Associate Justice Catherine T. Manahan and concurred in by Associate Justice Marian Ivy F. Reyes-Fajardo, with Separate Opinion of (Ret.) Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario. Rollo, pp. 73 to 77.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3032 (CTA Case No. 10130) Lantro Phils. Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue The dispositive portions of the assailed Decision and the assailed Resolution read as follows: Assailed Decision: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Assailed Resolution: WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 29 April2024) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. PARTIES OF THE CASE4 Petitioner is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines. It is registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) as a VAT taxpayer with principal office address at 420 D Francisco Legaspi St., Maybunga, Pasig City, under Tax Identification Number (TIN) 202-950-644-000. Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) is duly appointed to perform the duties of his office, including, inter alia, the power to decide disputed assessments subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, pursuant to Section 4 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, and Section 7 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1125, as amended by R.A. No. 9282. He holds office at the BIR National Office Building, Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City. FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS The facts as found by the Court in Division are as follows: 5 ANTECEDENTS (ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL) On April I, 2019, petitioner filed an Application for Tax Credits/Refunds (BIR Form No. 1914) for VAT refund with the BIR, j covering the period from January I, 2017 to March 31, 2017, in the amount off'3,949,107.91. 4 I The Parties, assailed Decision, Rollo, pp. 31 to 32. Antecedents (Administrative Level) and Proceedings Before This Court, !d. at 32 to 38. Citations omitted.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3032 (CTA Case No. 10130) Lantro Phils. Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue Thereafter, on June 18, 2019, petitioner received the Notice of Denial for VAT Refund/Credit dated May 31, 2019, issued by Regional Director (RD) Romu1o L. Aguila, Jr., on the ground that the BIR Form No. 1914 - Application for Tax Credits/Refunds was filed beyond the prescriptive period of two (2) years from the taxable quarter when the zero- rated sales were made pursuant to Section 112 (A) of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT On July 18, 2019, petitioner filed the present Petition for Review. Within the extended time granted by the Court, on October 23, 2019, respondent filed his Answer, interposing the following special and affirmative defenses, to wit: XXX On November 22,2019, respondent filed his Reopondent's Pre-Trial Brief On November 26, 2019, petitioner filed its Pre-Trial Brief (For the Petitioner). On November 28, 2019, the Court set the case for Pre-Trial Conference. On December 17, 2019, the parties submitted their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues, which was approved in the Resolution dated January 16,2020. On February 3, 2020, the Court issued the Pre-Trial Order. In the meantime, on January 2, 2020, respondent transmitted the BIR Records for the case, consisting of one (I) folder, with 2146 pages. During the hearing, petitioner presented the following witnesses: (I) Ms. Claire Gladiola Eclarinal, petitioner's Assistant Finance Manager; and (2) Ms. Thea May F. Vicera, the Court-commissioned Independent Certified Public Accountant (!CPA). The !CPA Report was submitted on June 30, 2020. An Amended Report was later submitted on September 25, 2020. On July 29, 2021, petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence, to which respondent filed his Comment [Re: Petitioner's Formal Offer of Evidence] on November 25,2021. In the Resolution dated March 30,2022, the Court resolved to admit petitioner's offered exhibits, except for several exhibits on such grounds as specified therein. On the other hand, respondent offered the testimony of Revenue Officer Mariz A. Pernia. Noting respondent's failure to file his Formal Offer ofEvidence, the Court issued the Resolution dated August 5, 2022, directing the parties to file their respective memorandum within thirty (30) days from notice. However, on August 16, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Admit Respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence with the attached Respondent's,

DECISION CTA EB No. 3032 (CTA Case No. 10130) Lantro Phiis. Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue Formal Offer ofEvidence. In the Resolution dated September 9, 2022, the Court admitted Respondent's Formal Offer ofEvidence. In the meantime, in compliance with the Court's Resolution dated August 5, 2022, petitioner filed its Memorandum on September 12, 2022. On September 30, 2022, petitioner filed a Manifestation, expressing no objection to Respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence. Thus, in the Resolution dated November 18,2022, the Court admitted all of respondent's offered exhibits. The case was submitted for decision on May 9, 2023, taking into consideration petitioner's Memorandum sans respondent's Memorandum. On April 29, 2024, the Special First Division rendered the assailed Decision, which was received by petitioner on May 7, 2024.6 Petitioner then filed, on May 22, 2024, a Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 29 April 2024),7 which was denied by the Court in the assailed Resolution received by petitioner on November 11, 2024.8 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC On November 26, 2024, petitiOner filed a Motion praying for an extension of 15 days from November 26, 2024, or until December 11, 2024, within which to file the Petition for Review.9 The same was granted by the Court on November 28, 2024. 10 The instant Petition for Review was filed on December 11, 2024. 11 Respondent failed to file his comment on the Petition for Review per Records Verification issued by the Court's Judicial Records Division on March 27, 2025. 12 On April 30, 2025, the instant case was submitted for decision. 13 1 Rollo, p. 30. Division Docket- Vol. II, pp. 731 to 739. Rollo, p. 79. 9 Jd.atlto3. 10 !d. at 8. 11 !d. at 9 to 25. " Jd.at183. 13 !d. at 184.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3032 (CTA Case No. 10130) Lantro Phils. Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue ISSUES Petitioner raised the following grounds in its Petition for Review: 14 A. The Court in Division erred in ruling that petitioner is not entitled to VAT refund. B. The Court in Division erred in ruling that petitioner's sales transactions failed to comply with the inv01cmg requirements under NIRC of 1997, as amended. C. The Court in Division erred in ruling that petitioner failed to comply with the invoicing and substantiation requirements on input VAT from domestic purchases and importations. PETITIONER'S ARGUMENTS Petitioner submits that it is entitled to its claim for refund as it has met the criteria enumerated in the case of Top Master Constructions (Phils.), Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue. Petitioner disagrees with the findings of the Court in Division and maintains that the Certificate of Registration issued by the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) is sufficient to entitle a supplier to VAT zero-rating with respect to its sales to a PEZA- registered enterprise. According to petitioner, Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 74-99 does not require the submission of a separate PEZA Certification to qualify for VAT zero-rating on its sales to PEZA- registered entities. Petitioner also argues that the subject input taxes have not been applied against any output VAT liability, during and in the succeeding quarters, and were not carried over to succeeding quarters. Petitioner insists that, although the amount being claimed as refund is not exactly the same as the amount provided in line item 23D of its VAT Return, this amount covers the amount being claimed for refund. Petitioner claims that it stands to be prejudiced by the excess amount erroneously indicated in its VAT Return since it will be deducted from its allowable input tax that may be carried over to the succeeding quarters, without having the benefit of using the excess amount against its output VAT or having the same refunded. Petitioner maintains that the reported overpayment in the amended first quarterly VAT Return of 20 17, where the amount being claimed was already deducted, was carried over to the second quarterly VAT Return of 201 7 in 1 14 Rollo, p. 12.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3032 (CTA Case No. 10130) Lantro Phils. Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue line item 20A. Petitioner, thus, strongly contends that the amount being claimed was not carried over to the succeeding quarter since the amount carried over was already net ofP5,209,804.13, which necessarily covers the amount being claimed. Petitioner posits that the amended first quarterly VAT Return of 2017 sufficiently proved that the amount being claimed was not applied against any output tax in the subject current quarter as the said amended VAT Return shows that an input tax carried over from the previous period reflected an amount of P49,212,611.18, against which the output tax in the amount of P9,352,288.19 can be applied on a "first-in, first-out" basis. Finally, petitioner asserts that its sales transactions were properly vouched and examined by the Court-commissioned Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA) pursuant to her mandate. Her examination ascertained that the issuance of receipts and/or invoices reflected and/or contained information required by law, complying with the invoicing requirements under Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 12-2013. Petitioner likewise avers that the Court-commissioned ICPA found the amount of P27,033,482.33 as petitioner's zero-rated sales with appropriate supporting documents. Nevertheless, even assuming that the amount of P7,576,538.22 was not compliant with invoicing requirements, it still has valid zero-rated sales for the first quarter of 201 7 in the amount of Pl9,456,944.11; hence, the input VAT being claimed for refund should be allocated to the percentage of such valid zero-rated sales. RULING OF THE COURT EN BANC The Court denies the instant Petition for Review. Timeliness ofthe Petition for Review Records show that petitioner received the assailed Resolution on November 11, 2024. 15 Counting 15 days therefrom, petitioner had until November 26, 2024 within which to file its Petition for Review before the Court En Bane. On November 26, 2024, petitioner filed aMotion 16 requesting for an additional period of 15 days, or until December 11, 2024, within which to file its Petition for Review, which was granted by this Court in a Minute Resolution dated November 28, 2024. 17 On December 10, 2024, petitioner timely filed its Petition for Review.\ 15 Rollo, p. 79. 16 !d. at 1 to3. 17 /d. at 8.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3032 (CTA Case No. 10130) Lantro Phils. Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue PEZA Certification is required to prove petitioner's zero-rated sales to PEZA- registered entities In the assailed Decision, the Court in Division disallowed petitioner's sales, in the amount of 1'12,856,792.51, to PEZA-registered entities without any proof of entitlement to VAT zero-rating under Section l 08(B)(3) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. In the assailed Resolution, the Court highlighted the difference of a PEZA Certificate of Registration and a PEZA VAT Zero-Rating Certificate (PEZA-ERD Form No. 97-01). The PEZA Certificate of Registration shows that the entity is duly registered with PEZA and such registration ipso facto results in the zero-rating of enterprise's transactions with its suppliers. The PEZA VAT Zero-Rating Certification, on the other hand, confirms that the enterprise is compliant with the conditions stipulated in its PEZA Certificate of Registration and has no outstanding penalties. The latter serves as the competent proof that the enterprise remains to be a qualified PEZA-registered enterprise and therefore entitled to the VAT zero-rating incentive. In the instant Petition for Review, petitioner alleges that the Court- commissioned ICPA thoroughly verified its customers' PEZA registration, and therefore, these entities are VAT zero-rated. Further, petitioner posits that PEZA Certificate of Registration is sufficient to entitle them for VAT zero- rating. According to petitioner, RMC No. 74-99, 18 which refers to the "Tax Treatment of Sales of Goods, Property and Services Made by a Supplier from the Customs Territory to a PEZA Registered Enterprise; and Sale Transactions Made by PEZA Registered Enterprises Within and Without the ECOZONE", does not require the submission of a separate PEZA Certification. The Court En Bane adopts and reiterates the findings of the Court in Division that the PEZA VAT Zero-Rating Certifications are proof that the PEZA-registered entities maintain their qualification for registration. In the assailed Resolution, the Court in Division emphasized that PEZA-registered entities are entitled to benefits and incentives, which include VAT zero-rating, but not without conditions. To maintain the qualifications oftheir registration, PEZA-registered entities must comply with the requirements set forth in R.A. No. 791619 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. Failure to comply 18 October 15, 1999. 1 19 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND MECHANISMS FOR THE CREATION, OPERATON, ADMINISTRATION, AND COORDINATION OF SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES IN THE PHILIPPINES, CREATlNG FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY (PEZA), AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, July 25, I994.

DECISION CTA EB No.J032 (CTA Case No. 10130) Lantro Phiis. Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue with the requirements set forth therein shall cause the cancellation of its registration. Thus, the Court En Bane agrees with the ruling of the Court in Division that the PEZA VAT Zero-Rating Certification serves as the competent proof that the enterprise availing of the incentives provided by law remains a qualified PEZA-registered enterprise. Clearly, absent the presentation of the PEZA VAT Zero-Rating Certifications for the following customers of petitioner, the related sales amount ofP12,856,792.51 is disallowed for failure to prove that these entities are entitled to VAT zero-rating: Customer Amount Acquire Asia Pacific Manila Inc. Axiem Corporation r 562,550.00 Convergys Philippines Inc. Diversify Intelligent Staffing Solution 4,320.00 International Digital Systems 9,967,055.70 Sykes Asia Inc. Phils. Tyco Fire Security and Services Pte Ltd 29,475.00 Lufthansa German Airlines 26,643.46 Vi shay Philippines Inc. I ,969,462.25 Rakuten Inc. 209,144.25 Total 19,652.00 40,000.00 28,489.68 p 12 856 792 51 The Court further notes that, among the customers of petitioner which are PEZA-registered, only the foregoing customers were not able to present the PEZA VAT Zero-Rating Certifications. Hence, the remaining portion of the sales of petitioner to PEZA-registered entities were duly substantiated with both PEZA Certificate of Registration and PEZA VAT Zero-Rating Certification. Given petitioner's failure to overcome the factual determination and refute the conclusion of the Court in Division, the Court En Bane affirms the same in full. Petitionerfailed to show that the subject input taxes have not been applied against output taxes during and in the succeeding quarters Petitioner asserts that the amount reflected in its amended first quarterly VAT Return of 2017 reflected the amount of P5,209,804.13 as VAT , refund/TCC claimed under line item 23D, which is an item of deduction from input tax. As this amount was effectively deducted from the amount which may be carried over to the next quarter, it shows that this amount was not

DECISION CTA EB No. 3032 (CTA Case No. 10130) Lantro Phiis. Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue applied against any output tax and was not carried over to the succeeding quarters. Petitioner further explains that, although the amount claimed as refund is not exactly the same as the amount provided in line item 23D of the subject VAT Return, this amount, which is higher, covers the amount being claimed for refund. The reported overpayment in the amended 1st quarter of20 17 VAT Return, where the amount being claimed was already deducted, was carried over to the second quarterly VAT Return of 2017. Petitioner, thus, claims that the amount being claimed was not carried over to the succeeding quarter since the amount carried over was already net of the P5,209,804.13, which necessarily covers the subject claim of P3 ,949, 107.91. Finally, petitioner submits that the amended first quarterly VAT return of 2017 sufficiently proved that the amount being claimed was not applied against any output tax in the subject current quarter as the input tax carried over from the previous period, under line item 20A, reflected the amount of P49,212,611.18, against which the output tax ofP9,352,288.19 can be applied on a "first-in, first-out" basis. Petitioner highlights that the input tax for the current period, which necessarily includes the amount being claimed, remained intact and was not applied to any output tax of petitioner. We do not agree. As petitioner is claiming the specific amount of P3,949, 107.91 for refund, it must clearly establish that the said amount was not applied against its output VAT liability during and in the succeeding quarters. Jurisprudence is replete with cases requiring taxpayers who claim for refund, which is in the nature of a tax exemption, to justify its entitlement to claim for refund with sufficient and competent evidence.20 As aptly found by the Court in Division, petitioner cannot simply insist that the amount that was already deducted from input tax in the amended first quarterly VAT Return of 2017 already covers the amount claimed for refund only because it exceeds the latter. Without presenting any proof referring to the specific amount of P3,949,107.91, the Court is unable to verify whether the amount claimed for refund was not yet applied against the output VAT liability during and in the succeeding quarters. 1 2� Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Filminera Resources Corp., G.R. No. 236325, September 16, 2020, Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., G.R. No. 207039, August 14, 2019; Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 183531, March 25,2015.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3032 (CTA Case No. 10130) Lantro Phils. Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue The Court En Bane, thus, concurs with the discussion of the Court in Division in the assailed Decision and assailed Resolution that the taxpayer- claimant has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of the claim for tax refund. Petitioner failed to comply with the invoicing requiremenst under the NIRC of1997, as amended The Court in Division discussed that not all of petitioner's sales to PEZA-registered entities were properly substantiated with compliant invoices/official receipts (ORs). Upon examination of the invoices presented by petitioner, the Court in Division disallowed its zero-rated sales amounting to P7,576,538.22 for failure to comply with Sections 113(A) and (B), and 237, in relation to Section 23 8, of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. The Court in Division noted the following: (I) some of petitioner's sales of services were supported by VAT sales invoices and not by official ORs; (2) petitioner's sale of services to JPMorgan Chase Bank NA Phil Global Services Center was supported by billing statement and not by OR; (3) its sale of goods to JPMorgan Chase Bank NA Phil Global Services Center was supported by VAT sales invoice but the sales amount is labelled as VAT Exempt; and, (4) a portion of its sales do not have supporting documents. Consequently, the Court in Division held that the valid zero-rated sales for the first quarter of TY 2017 of petitioner only amounts to P6,600, 151.60. Petitioner maintains that its sales transactions were properly vouched and examined by the Court-commissioned ICPA. Petitioner claims that the Court-commissoned ICPA found that the amount of P27,033,482.33 represents its zero-rated sales with appropriate supporting documents. We are not convinced. To reiterate, the Court is not bound by the findings of the Court- commissioned ICPA.21 As fittingly discussed by the Court in Division in the assailed Resolution, the conclusions of the Court-commisioned ICPA are not conclusive upon the Court, which is free to make its own verification and evaluation of the evidence on record and either completely or partially adopt or disregard the findings of the Court-commisisoned ICPA. Petitioner cannot merely rely on the ICPA's findings. The Court ultimately determines petitioner's claim based on the evidence it presented. , 21 Section 3, Rule 13, RRCTA.

DECISION CTA EB No.J032 (CTA Case No. 10130) Lantro Phi/s. Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue Page II of 13 This Court cannot subscribe to petitioner's asseveration that the Court- commissioned ICPA verified the registration of petitioner's customers that entitles them automatically to VAT zero-rating incentive. The findings and conclusions of the Court-commissioned ICPA may be challenged by the parties and shall not be conclusive upon the Court, which may, in whole or in part adopt such findings and conclusions, subject to verification.22 Petitioner failed to comply with the invoicing and substantiation requirements on its input VAT from domestic purchases and importations Petitioner still argues that the ICPA Report submitted before the Court in Division provided that the Court-commissioned ICPA ascertained that the summary of the purchases complies with proper invoicing requirements. Petitioner avers that the pertinent ORs and invoices for these purchases were duly marked and submitted as exhibits for the present case. On the other hand, the Certificate oflmportation and other importation documents issued by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) were also duly marked and submitted as exhibits to support her findings as to the input VAT from petitioner's importations. While petitioner proposes a different computation as regards the attributability to its VAT zero-rated sales, petitioner firmly stands that it is entitled to its claim for refund in the amount ofP3,949,107.91. The Court En Bane affirms the consistent holding of the Court in Division, as set forth in the assailed Decision and assailed Resolution, that the Court-commissioned !CPA's findings are never determinative of the Court's final judgment. As petitioner failed to properly substantiate its domestic purchases and importations in compliance with Section 4.110-8 of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 16-2005,23 and under Sections 113(A) and (B), 23 7, and 23 8 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, as implemented by Section 4.113-I(A) and (B) of RR No. 16-2005, its claim for refund shall be disallowed. Note that claims for refund are in the nature of tax exemptions, thus, strictly construed against the taxpayer claiming it. The Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Philippine National Bank,24 accords the highest respect to the factual findings of the CTA, which shall not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of discretion on its part, to wit: xxx Further, it is well settled that factual findings of the CTA when supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal. Due to \ 22 Tullet Prebon (Philippines), Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 257219, July 15, 2024. 23 Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations of2005, September I, 2005. 24 G.R. No. 212699, March 13,2019.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3032 (CTA Case No. 10130) Lantro Phi/s. Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue the nature of its functions, the tax court dedicates itself to the study and consideration of tax problems and necessarily develops expertise thereon. Unless there has been an abuse of discretion on its part, the Court accords the highest respect to the factual findings of the CTA. Considering that the evaluation of the evidence is with the Court in Division, the Court En Bane shall not disturb its factual findings when supported by substantial evidence, absent any abuse of discretion on the CTA's part. In the case ofRhombus Energy, Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue,25 the Supreme Court acknowledged that the Court in Division is in the best position to examine the documents submitted in relation to the case before it to make proper findings thereon, to wit: The members of the CTA First Division were in the best position as trial judges to examine the documents submitted in relation thereto, and to make the proper findings thereon. Given their expertise on the matter, we accord weight and respect to their finding that Rhombus had satisfied the requirements for its claim for refund of its excess creditable withholding taxes for the year 2005. (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted) As the Court in Division thoroughly reviewed and scrutinized the evidence presented by the parties, and petitioner failed to adequately demonstrate the assigned error allegedly committed by the Court in Division, the Court En Bane finds no reason to disturb its findings and grant its Petition for Review. ACCORDINGLY, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated April 29, 2024 and the Resolution dated October 31, 2024 rendered in CTA Case No. 10130 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. WE CONCUR: l. ~ 1"- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice 25 G.R. No. 206362, August l, 2018.

DECISION CTA EB No. 3032 (CTA Case No. 10130) Lantro Phiis. Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue MARIA PEDRO . ~ fRE~ Y~S~F-fAaf1oA..R.D.~O ~ 1;-/J. MARIAN Associate Justice LAN~!VID Associate Justice HENRYil.NGELES Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. ~- -?f..4._ I - MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice