COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PANAY POWER COMPANY

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, CTA EB CASE No . 683 (CTA Case No. 7468) -versus- Pre s e nt : Acosta, �L Castaneda, Jr., Bauti s ta, Uy, Casanova, P alan c a - E nriqu e z , Fabon-Victorino, Mindaro-Grulla, and Cotangco-Manalas tas, Jl PANAY POWER COMPANY, Promulgated: NOV 2 9 2011 ll�'J-ttr/4~ / ~ X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X DECISION COTANGCO-MANALASTAS, J_: Before this Court is a Petition for R eview1 flled by the Commissioner o f Internal Revenue on September 17, 2010, pursuant to S ec/ion 18 of RepublicAd (R.A.) No. 1125, as amended ly Section 11 ~( R../1 . No. 9282, and S ection 3(b), Rule 8 of the 2005 Ret;ised Rules of the Court ofTax Appeals (RJZCJA), with a prayer that the portion o f the Decision2 enunciated by the Special First Division o f this Court on March 16, 2010 granting the refund or issuance o f a tax credit certificate (TCC) in favor o f Panay Power Company in the amount o f P14,526,563.3 1 be set aside and a new one be entered denying the claim in its V entirety. 1 Rollo, pp. 1-3 3. 2 Division Dotket, pp. 43 1-45 1.

D ECISION Page 2 of 14 CT.-\ EB C -\SE No. 683 (CT.-\ Case No. 7468) Commissioner ofinternal Revenue vs. Panqy Power Compmry The dispositive portion of the assailed decision reads: WH E REFORE, premises considered, th e Petitio n for Review is hereby PARTIALLY G RANTE D . Accordingly, respondent is hereby ORDERED to REFUN D o r to ISS UE A TAX CRE DIT CERTIFI CATE in favor of petitio ner in th e reduced amount of P1 4,526,5 63.3 1, represen ting unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales as power genera tion company for taxable year 2004. SO ORDERED. ANTECEDENT FACTS The facts, as found by the Special First Division, are as fo llows: '"Panay Power Corporatio n (petitioner) is a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippin e laws, with principal o ffice at 2nd Floor Benpres Building, Meralco Avenue, Pas ig City. Petitio ner is registered with th e Bureau o f Internal Revenu e (BIR) as a valu e-added tax 0Jf\ T) taxpayer as of October 11 , 1996, with Tax Identificatio n No. (fiN) 004-964-861-000, as evidenced by its Certificate of Registratio n No. OCN 3RC0000271281. Res po ndent, o n the other hand, is the duly appointed Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenu e empowered to perform the duties of said o ffice including, am o ng o thers, the power to decide, approve and grant refunds or tax credits o f erroneously or excessively paid taxes. H e ho lds office at the BIR National Office Building, BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City. P etitio ner is principally engaged in the business of generating power for lighting and power purposes and the wholesale of electric power to the Na tional Power Corpora tio n, priva te elec tric utilities, and electric cooperatives, and for the carrying o n o f all businesses incident thereto, including but no t limited to the sale o f the by-products o f power generation. As such, it is likewise registered with and authorized by the E nergy Regulatory Commission (ERC) to o perate facilities used in th e generatio n of electricity. It was issued a Certificate of Compliance No. 03-06-GXT8-0008 by the E RC o n Jun e 4, 2003. Petitio ner filed with the BIR its Original and A m ended Quarterly VAT Returns for the fo ur quarters of 2004 on the following dates: P eri o d Original Return Amended Return Covered Filed On Exhibit Filed On Exhibit First Quarter April 26, 2004 E July 28, 2004 FV

D ECISION Page 3 of 14 CTA EB CASE No. 683 (CT[\ Case No. 7468) Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. Panay Power Compaf!y Second Quarter July 26, 2004 G to G-2 Third Quarter October 25, 2004 H to H-2 J to J-2 Fourth Quarter January 24, 2005 I to I-2 April 25, 2005 On December 21, 2005, petitioner filed with the BIR a written claim for refund corresponding to its alleged unutilized excess input VAT in the total amount ofP28,121,495.21. Due to respondent's inaction on the said administrative claim for refund, petitioner filed this instant Petition for Review on April 24, 2006, pray111g for the refund or issuance of tax credit certificate in the amount of P28,121,495.21, for its alleged unutilized input VAT for taxable year 2004. In his Answer filed on June 1, 2006, respondent raised the following Special and Affirmative Defenses: "4. Petitioner's alleged claim for refund is subject to administrative investigation by the Bureau; 5. Petitioner must prove that it paid for the input VAT so alleged; 6. Petitioner must prove that the same input VAT was not utilized against any output VAT liability; 7. Petitioner must prove that its sales are VAT zero-rated as contemplated under Section 112 (A) of the Tax Code of 1997; 8. Petitioner mu st prove that the claim was filed within the two (2) year period prescribed in Section 229 of the Tax Code; 9. In an action for refund, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to establish its right to refund, and failure to sus tain the burden is fatal to the claim for refund; 10. Claims for refund are construed strictly against the claimant for the same partake of the nature of exemption from taxation." During trial, petitioner presented documentary and testimonial evidence. Respondent, on the other hand, waived his right to present evidence and submitted the case for decision. On March 23, 2009, the case was submitted for decision, considering petitioner's Memorandum filed on February 12, 2009 and respondent's V Memorandum filed on March 16, 2009.

DECISION Page 4 of 14 CTA EB CASE No. 683 (CTA Case N o. 7468) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Panqy Power Company The Ruling of the Court in Division The case was decided in favor o f respondent Panay P ower Company. The Court in Division affirmed that respondent is registered with and authorized by the E nergy Regulatory Commission (E RC) to o perate fa cilities used in the generation o f electricity, und er E RC Certificate of Compliance No. 03-06-GXT8-0008; that respond ent generated sales from power generation services for the four quarters o f taxable year 2004 in the am ount o f P9 57,5 12,701. 53, which was reported in its quarterly Value-Added T ax 01AT) returns for the same period. A fter careful scrutiny, the Court a quo learned that respondent's o fficial receipts showed however a to tal o f P900,262,414.58 only. Thus, respondent's declared zero-rated sales are only 94.02% substantiated, computed as follows: Substantiated zero-rated sales p 900,262,41 4.58 Divided by declared zero-rated sales p 957,5 12,701.53 Percentage o f substantiated zero-rated sales 94.02% T he Court a quo found the Independent Certified Public Accountant's (ICPA) report to be in order, where the ICP A declared that only P1 7,233,508.29 is pro perly substantiated out o f the to tal claim o f P28,280,542.87. H owever, after verification, the Court a quo furth er decreased the claimed input VAT by P1 ,624,111.16. T hus, according to the Court a quo respondent's valid creditable input tax is P14,526,5 63.31, computed as follows: T otal available input VAT per VAT Returns p 11 ,047,034.58 p 28,280,542.87 Less: Disallowances 1,624,111.16 (12,671,145. 74) Per ICPA (159,047.70) Per Court' s verification Less: Output VAT p 15,450,349.43 Valid input VAT 94.02% Multiply by percentage of substantiated zero-rated sales Valid creditable input tax p 14,526,563.31

DECISION Page 5 o f 14 CTA EB CASE No. 683 (CTA Case No. 7468) CommiSJioner of Internal Revenue vJ. Panqy Pou1er Compaf!y Also, the Court in Division ruled out the possibility o f the input VAT having been utilized in the succeeding taxable quarters; this is in view o f the fact that respondent, in its original and amended qu arterly Vi\T returns for taxable year 2005, deduc ted the amount P59,533,378.83, o f which the valid input VAT o f P1 4,526,563.31 forms part, as "A ny VAT Refund / TCC Claimed" from the total available input tax o f P68,350,275.57. Finally, the Court a quo affirmed that both the administrative claim for refund filed on D ecember 21, 2005 and the Petition for Review filed on April 24, 2006 fell within the two-year prescriptive period. Both parues sought the partial reco nsideration of the Court a quo's Decision promulgated on March 16, 2010. In a Resolution' dated August 27, 2010, the Court a quo pronounced that it found no cogent reason to disturb, reverse or modify aforesaid Detision, thus, Panay Power Company's Mo tion for Partial Reconsideration (of D ecision dated 16 March 201 0) and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Mo tion for Partial Reconsideration were both denied for lack o f merit. H ence, this Petition for Review.:. In a Resolutio n5 dated O ctober 1, 2010, the Court E n Bane ordered respondent Panay Power Company to file its comment within ten (10) days from receipt o f resolution. Respond ent's Comment O n Petitioners Petitio n for Review was received by this Court on O ctober 26, 2010. O n November 17, 2010, the parties were ordered to submit their res pective Memoranda within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from receipt thereof./,-- 3 Rollo, pp. 27-30. 4 Rollo, pp. 1-33. s Rollo, pp. 35-36.

DECISION Page 6 of 14 CTA EB CASE No. 683 (CT,-\ Case No. 7468) � Commissioner of Internal Revenue vJ. Pantry Power Company Respo ndent submitted its Me m o ra nd u m 1 on D ecember 22, 2010, whereas petitio ner's ' Mem orandum7 was received by this Court o n February 2, 2011. T he case was submitted for decision on March 1, 2011. ISSUES Whether the Court a quo erred in partially granting respo ndent's claim for refund or issuance o f a tax credit certifica te o f its unutilized inpu t VAT for taxable year 2004 o n the following ground s, to wit: [i] respondent's failure to submit with the petitio ner all the necessary documents relevant to its claim during the administrative stage o f its claim for refund or tax credit; and [ii] respo nd ent's failure to prove compliance with the invoicing requiremen ts m entioned in Sectio ns 110 and 113 o f the Na tio nal Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) o f 1997, as am ended, in relatio n to the provisio ns o f Revenue Regulatio ns 7-9 5. Argumen ts of P e ti tion er P etitio ner submits that respondent is not entitled to refund or tax creclit even in the reduced am ount o f P14,526,563.31 allegedly representing respondent's unutilized input tax because it failed to submit with petitio ner all the necessary and relevant documents to support its administrative claim for refund or tax creclit. Accorcling to petitioner, respo ndent failed to prove before this Court during trial that it complied with or submitted all necessary and evidentiary documents to support its administrative applicatio n for refund or tax creclit o f excess input VAT before resorting to juclicial review o f its claim for refund or tax creclit. While it is true that respo ndent filed an administrative claim for refund, the same is co nsidered m erely pro forma as it failed to submit documentary evidence to prove its entitlement thereto. Also, 6 &I/o, pp. 57-90. 7 &I/o, pp. 100-109 .

DECISION Page 7 of 14 CTA EB CASE No. 683 (CrA Case No. 7468) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Panay Power CompaiiJ respondent failed to prove compliance with the prescribed checklist of requirements to be submitted in claims for VAT refund pursuant to Revenue Memorandum Order No. 53-98. Further, petitioner avers that respondent failed to prove that it has complied with the invoicing requirements mentioned in Sections 110 and 113 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, in relation to the provisions of Revenue Regulations 7-95. Arguments ofRespondent Two major points were invoked by respondent to controvert petitioner's allegations, ?Jiz : [1] a new issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; and [2] respondent was constrained to ftle the Petition for Review due to petitioner's inaction to its administrative claim. f'z'rst, respondent points out that the Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues approved on October 25, 2006, does not contain the issue being raised by petitioner in this petition; and that petitioner has not even mentioned the issue on mpondent'sfailure to submit with the BIR documents to sttpport its admimstrati?Je claim in her Answer filed on June 1, 2006. Citing Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation IJJ. CJR, G.R No. 168498, Apri/24, 2007, respondent reasoned that said issue cannot anymore be raised as "points of law, theories, issues and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the lower court will not be ordinarily considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, much more in a motion for reconsideration as in this case, because this would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process." Also, respondent argues that petitioner has given only general allegations that respondent has submitted insufficient evidence and did not comply with invoicing requirements; such allegations, V having been raised for the first time and without specification on the insufficiency of the

DECISION Page 8 of 14 CTA E B CASE N o. 683 (CT,\ Case No. 7468) Commtssioner ~/ Internal Revenue vJ. Panay Po/.ller Company documents o f resp o ndent, are baseless claims which lack sa tisfa ctory explanatio n as to merit the attention o f this Court.H Second, respo ndent asseverates that: it was co nstrained to file the instant petitio n o n A pril 24, 2006, in accordance with Sectio n 11 2 o f the T ax Code and RMC 61 -2005, due to petitioner's inaction o n its administrative claim; if respo nd ent indeed failed to submit co mplete do cumentary evidence, petitioner could have easily rendered a decisio n in view of the alleged failure . To buttress its defense, respo nd ent made reference to CIR IJS. Cebu Geothermal Power Comparry, Inc. 9 where this Court ruled that 'while the submission o f complete supporting do cuments is necessary for the granting o f a refund or tax credit certificate, the afore-qu o ted provisio n does not state that the no n-submissio n o f the supp osed complete documents m akes the administrative claim for refund o r tax credit certificate invalid or pro forma, the effect of which makes the judicial appeal dismissible for lack o f jurisdictio n'. Respo nd ent likewise cited the ruling o f this Court in the case o f CJR IJS. San Roque Power Corporation 10 where We held tha t ' the alleged no n-submissio n of complete do cuments at the administrative level will not bar this Court from receiving evidence, evaluating and appreciating its m ateriality, relevancy, probative value and sufficiency concerning the San Ro que P ower Corp oratio n' s claim for refund considering that the C IR failed to state and identify what documents did San Roque P ower Corporation fail to submit in o rder to warrant their denial. T he C IR ought to know that mere allega tion is no t evidence. Thus, m ere allega tio n in the to tal absence o f evidence is just that - an V allegation - underserving o f credence'. 8 Rollo, pp. 42-43, COMMENT 011 Petitioner'J Petition fo r Revie/.11. 9 CT A EB No. 426, May 29, 2009. 10 CTA EB No. 523, April1 5, 2010.

DECISION Page 9 of 14 CTA EB CASE N o . 683 (CT.-\ Case No. 7468) Commzssioner of Internal Revenue vs. Panqy Power Company Further, respondent avers that petitioner herself recognizes that administrative and judicial clairns for VAT refund or tax credit can proceed simultaneou sly under Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 49 -03. T hus, petitioner may still evaluate and act on respondent's administrative claim for refund or tax credit even if a Petition for Review h as already been filed in Court. THE RULING OF THE COURT EN BANC We find no merit in the instant petition. The groundwork o f the instant petition is principally lodged on the allegation that respondent failed to prove before this Court that it complied with or submitted all necessary and evidentiary documents to support its administrative application for refund or tax credit of excess input VAT in the amount of P14,526,563.31 with petitioner before resorting to judicial review pursuant to Section 112 (C) of the N IRC of 1997, as amended. We quote: SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax credits of Input Tax. - XXX XXX XXX (C) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be made. - In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsection (A) hereof. In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund or credit, or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the application within period prescribed above, the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the one hundred twenty-day period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals. (Italics Supplied) Pursuant to the aforequoted Section 112 (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) has 120 days from the submission of the l-- complete supporting documents to decide the claim for refund. T hus, a taxpayer must

DECISION Page 10 of 14 CTA EB CASE o. 683 (CTA. Case No. 7468) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Panqy Power Company first submit the complete supporting documents before the 120-day period should co mmence . A careful scruuny o f the records reveal that resp o nden t indeed submitted necessary and evidentiary do cumen ts to support its administrative application for re fund or tax credit o f excess input VAT. In the instan t case, respo ndent flied o n D ecember 21, 2005 its administrative claim for refund or issuance o f tax credit certificate, it is apparent that respo ndent, up o n the filing o f its judicial claim, simultaneously submitted the complete d ocuments in support thereof. T his is evident in respo ndent's administrative claim, wherein the fo llowing statemen ts were indicated , lliz. " In support of this application, we enclose copies of the following documents: 1. Articles of Incorp oratio n 2. E RC Registration and Compliance Certi fi cate 3. VAT Registra tio n Certificate 4. Q uar terly VAT Returns for the first, second, third and fourth quarters of 2004; 5. Summary of Input Tax Payments for the first, second, third and fo urth quarters of 2004 showing the details of PPC's purchases of goods and services as well as the correspo nding input taxes paid, together with the pertinent supporting VAT invoices and official rece1p ts. 6. Applica tion for Zero Rate for the year 2004" A fter going over the record s of this case, We find that there's nothing on record which shows that petitio ner notified / required respo ndent to submit any additio nal documents other than those already submitted for considera tio n in the administrative level. T hus, the running o f the 120-day perio d co mmenced and continued to run from the date respo nden t flied its administrative applicatio n together with the supporting documents, i.e., D ecember 21, 2005 up to April 20, 2006, as the running o f the said perio d was no t stopped by any no tificatio n fro m the BIR. To reiterate, the records o f this case belie petitio ner's allega tio ns as herein respo nd ent was able to attach toge ther with its administrative applica tio n for refund or/.--

DECISION Page 11 of14 CTA EB CASE N o. 683 (CTA. Ca se N o. 7468) Commzssioner of Internal Revenue v.r. Panqy Po1.11er Company tax credit the relevant supp orting documents, i.e., Articles o f Incorporatio n, E RC Registratio n and Co mpliance Certificate, VAT Registratio n Certifica te, Q uarterly VAT Returns for 2004, Summary Input Tax Paym ents for 2004, supp orting VAT invoices and o fficial receipts, Applica tio n for Zero Rate fo r the year 2004. Furth er, the instant petitio n is in fac t dearth o f evidence which could prove / show that respo nd en t failed to submit complete documents to support its administrative claim for refund / tax credit. Considering that CIR failed to identify or point out and prove to this Court the specific documents which were not submitted, petitioner's argumen ts clearly sta nd on mere allegations of no n-submission of complete documents. O n the basis of those sheer allegatio ns, which run counter to the evidence on record, petitioner prays for this Court to reverse and se t aside the DedJion and ReJo!ution which were tedio usly evaluated and prudently decided by the Special First D ivision. Such is a dangerous proposition, and o ne which We refu se to countenance. Settled is the rule in this jurisdiction that the alleged non-submission of complete documents at the administrative level will not bar this Court fro m receiving evidence, evaluating and appreciating its materiality, relevancy, probative value and sufficiency concerning th e respo ndent's claim for refund co nsidering that the CIR failed to state and identify w hat d ocuments respond ent failed to submit in order to warrant their denial. T he CIR ough t to know that mere allegatio n is not evidence. T hus. m ere allegatio n in the to tal absence of evidence is just that - an allega tion - underserving of credence. 11 Mere allegatio ns without adducing documentary evidence are no t sufficien t. A llega tio n is V no t syno nym ous with proo f. 12 11 Commissioner oj"Internal lvvenue vs. San Roque P01ver Corporation, CTA E B Case No. 523, ,\ pril 15, 2010 citing l ndustn.a/ T ex tile Mamifacturing Co. oj"the Phils. Im�. vs. LPJ E nt. Inc, G .R. N o. 66 140; January 31, 1993, 217 SCRA 322. 12 E rnesto M artin VJ". H on. Court qfAppeals and Manila Eledric Company, G.R. N o. 82248, January 30, 1992.

DECISION Page 12 of 14 CTA EB C\SE No. 683 (CTA Case No. 7468) Commissioner ofInternal &venue vs. Panqy Power Company In view of the foregoing, it would not be amiss to conclude that the reckoning of the 120-day period under Section 112 (C) of the NIRC, as amended, commenced simultaneously with the filing of petitioner's administrative claim on December 21, 2005. Thus, respondent timely flied its appeal by way of a Petition for Review in CTA Case No. 7468 on April 24, 2006, as the same was flied well within the 30-day period after the lapse of the 120-day period under Section 112 (C) of the NIRC, as amended. 'In a VAT refund case such as the prese nt case, the alleged non-submission of complete documents at the administrative level is not fatal to a claim for refund in the judicial level as held in several CTA En Bane cases, one of which is CommiSJioner ifInternal Revenue tJJ. CE Luzon Geothermal Power Compmry, Inc. It will not bar the CTA from receiving, evaluating and appreciating evidence submitted before it. Once the claim for refund has been elevated to the CTA, the admissibility, materiality, relevancy, probative value and weight of evidence presented therein become subject to the Rules of Court. The question of whether or not the evidence submitted by a party is sufficient to warrant the granting of a claim for refund lies within the sound discretion and judgment of the With regard to petitioner's allegation attributing failure on the part of respondent to prove compliance with the invoicing requirements mentioned in Sections 110 and 113 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, in relation to the provisions of Revenue Regulations 7-95, We find the same to be unfounded . In the challenged Deasion and ReJolution, the Court a quo ruled that respondent was able to present o fficial receipts and invoices which were reviewed and found to have�-- 13 Commissioner of Internal &venue vs. Toledo Power Company, CT,-\ EB Case No . 589, January 12, 2011 citing Consolidated Cases of CE Luzon Geothermal Power Company, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal &venue, CTA EB No. 553 and Commissioner of Internal &venue vs. CE Luzon Geothermal POJJJer Company, Inc., CTA EB No. 554, July 20, 2010, CommiJJioner of Internal &venue vs. San Roque Power Corporation, CTA EB No . 523, ,-\pril 15, 2010; CTA EB No . 474, September 1, 2009; Commis.rioner ~~Internal &venue vs. Visqyas Geothermal Power Company, Inc., CTA EB Case No. 282 (CL\ Case Nos. 6790 & 6838), November 20, 2007, citing jiduo Manifacturing Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CT,-\ Case No. 6552, Sep tember 16, 2004.

DECISION Page 13 of 14 CTA EB CASE N o. 683 (CTA Case No. 7468) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Panqy Power Company properly sub stantiated the am ount of claim gran ted in the subj ect DetiJion. Furth er, the allegations in this Petition for Review concerning no n-co mpliance with the invoicing requirem ents are m ere rehash of the allegatio ns in the Mo tio n for Reconsidera tio n which were passed upo n, cliscussed and co nsidered in the assailed DetiJion and ReJolution. It is significant to note that co nclusions and finclings of fact by the trial court are entitled to great weigh t o n appeal and should no t be disturb ed unless for stro ng and cogent reasons because the trial court is in a better position to examine real evidence, as well as to observe the dem eanor o f the witnesses w hile tes tifying in the case. 14 In fin e, the Court E n Bane find s no cogent reaso n to clisturb the fmclings and conclusio n in the assailed DetiJion and ReJolution of the Court' s Special Firs t Division, promulgated o n March 16, 2010 and August 27, 2010, respectively. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant P etition for Review is hereby DISMISSED for lac k o f merit. Accorclingly, the assailed DeciJion dated March 16, 2010 and ReJolution d ated A ugust 27, 2010 in CTA Case No. 7468 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ,d4,/.~~ AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate J ustice WE CONCUR: IL_x""' . a-..1'- ERNEsro D. ACOSTA Presicling Justice Ck~ c .~ ,O. JTfANITO C. CASTANEDA,1R. Associate Justice l.J Spouses Patricio and My rna Bernales v. I-/eirs ojj ulian Sambaan, eta/. , G. R No. 16327 1, January 15,2010.

D ECIS ION Page 14 of 14 CT:\ EB CASE No. 683 (CT.-\ Case No. 7468) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Pantry Power Compa1ry (On Wellness Leave) -#- ERLINDA P. UY CAESARA. CASANOVA Associate Justice ~- ~ OLGA PALANCA-ENR~UEZ Associate Justice ~ ~.M~~ .. G~ CIELITO N . MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuan t to Sectio n 13, Article VIII o f the Constitution , it is hereby certified that the conclusio ns in the above D ecision were reached in consultatio n with the m embers of the Court En Bane be fo re the case was assigned to the writer o f the opinio n of the Court. \...__...~ Q.......,.c-. ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding J us tice