NIPPON EXPRESS PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY S becial Second Division :1 NIPPON EXPRESS CTA CASE NO. 11111 PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Members: Petitioner, RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.]., ChairperJon, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and -versus - FERRER-FLORES, Jl. Promulgated: COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, _____12!? f 111 ReJpondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X AMENDED DECISION RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.].: Before this Court is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and/ or New Trial filed on March 5, 2026, with respondent's Comment/Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration and/ or New Trial dated 04 March 2026) filed on April 27, 2026. On February 5, 2026, the Court promulgated a Decision denying petitioner's claim for refund of unutilized input value-added tax (y Arl) attributable to its zero-rated sale of services for the period October 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020, in the amount of P12,797, 188.46, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: "ACCORDINGLY, in light of the foregoing considerations, the present Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED." In its l\1otion, petltloner argues that the Court erred in finding that petitioner has no excess valid input taxes left to claim for refund-as the output tax due exceeds the valid input taxes-which resulted in the denial of its claim for ~

AMENDED DECISION CTA Case No. 11111 refund. Petitioner assails the disallowances made by the Court, contending that its sales are, in fact, supported by the required certifications and/ or contemporaneous transaction documents. For this reason, petitioner implores the Court that the disallowed amounts be re-evaluated and reinstated as properly substantiated zero-rated sales. Petitioner also asserts that it has complied with the minimum statutory requirements provided under Section 112(A) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended. 1\ccording to petitioner, by allocating the valid input taxes to either zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales and taxable or exempt sales, petitioner has established a presumption that its input taxes are attributable to its zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales. This presumption has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the party who would be disadvantaged by the finding of the said presumed fact. In this aspect, petitioner avers that respondent failed to present any evidence to dispute the presumption that its input VAT are not attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales. Petitioner likewise insists that charging a portion of input taxes attributable to zero-rated sales to the output taxes is not a requirement for entitlement to a refund of unused or unutilized input VAT from zero-rated sales. Thus, not being a requirement, petitioner is not required to charge a portion of input taxes attributable to zero-rated sale to the output taxes. Furthermore, petitioner also points out that the court-commissioned Independent Certified Public .Accountant (ICPA) recommended the partial granting of its claim for refund in the amount of P6,458,316.16. As such, petitioner prays for the reconsideration of the Decision, and for the issuance of an Order, granting its claim for refund based on the recommendation of the ICPA. In any case, petitioner submits that it honestly believed that the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) Certifications and the Offsetting Agreement which it provided were captured, considered, and attached by the ICPA in his Report that was submitted to the Court. Petitioner explains that the omission was not willful, not intended to suppress evidence, and was not a reckless disregard of procedure, as it was merely the result of a good-faith misapprcciation and inadvertent non-inclusion of specific, identified documents in the I CPA's submission-despite petitioner's diligent prosecution of the case. For petitioner, this constitutes "mistake" and/or "excusable negligence" within the contemplation of Rule 37, Section l(a) of the Revised Rules of Court. .As such, petitioner also prays that, in the alternative, the case be reopened and it be allowed to present the documents enumerated therein for the limited purpose of filling the precise evidentiary gaps identified by the Court. On the other hand, in his Comment, respondent agrees with the Court's ruling that after considering all pieces of evidence submitted by petitioner, it found that the latter does not have any excess input tax to refund; and, instead, ~

AMENDED DECISION CTA Case No. 11111 it even has output tax still due. Respondent avers that the Court's Decision is consistent with his observations when it denied petitioner's administrative claim for refund for the following reasons: (1) failure to submit complete documents; (2) violation of invoicing requirements; and (3) input tax discrepancy in petitioner's returns and submitted schedules. Respondent reiterates that in an action for refund, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to establish its right to refund, and failure to sustain the burden is fatal to its claim. Moreover, respondent also argues that petltloner did not ra1se any compelling reason that would justify the presentation of additional evidence, and that the same must be considered as "forgotten evidence." Respondent insists that it can be inferred from the ICPA's testimony that all documents relative to petitioner's claim for refund were reviewed by the ICPA, as shown by the fact that the latter submitted an Interim, a Final, and an Amended ICPA Report. As such, respondent submits that there was gross negligence on the part of petitioner when it did not review the ICPA Report or the Judicial Affidavit of the ICPi\ before they were presented and, thus, petitioner is already estopped from correcting the ICP z\ Report on the ground of laches. Lastly, respondent points out no judicial affidavit was submitted by the ICPA stating that he made a mistake in his Report. He assails the Affidavit of Merit attached by petitioner in its Motion since it was executed by petitioner's Finance Manager. Respondent expounds that the party that made the mistake should have been the one to execute the said Affidavit of 1\1erit explaining the nature of the mistake and the reasons thereof. After due consideration, the Court finds partial merit in petitioner's Niotion for Reconsideration. To recall, the Court found that out of petitioner's declared zero-rated sales ofP797,143,319.03, only P79,930,865.11 was deemed valid: 1 Total zero-rated sales per Quarterly VAT Return p 797,143,319.03 Less: Disallowances per ICPA 7,142,149.78 Valid zero-rated sales per ICPA findings p 790,001,169.25 Less: Additional disallowances per Court findings: Sales to entities without certifications from government agencies 90,429,669.59 and/ or Certificate of Foreign Incorporation Sales to NRFCs not denominated in foreign currency 228,924,808.80 Sales supported by ORs with no nature of services indicated 390,715,825.75 Valid and properly substantiated zero-rated sales P79,930,865.11 Petitioner now argues that a portion of the disallowed sales are supported by the required certifications and/ or contemporaneous transaction docume~ 1 Decision, Docket- Vol. II, p. 667.

AMENDED DECISION CTA Case No. 11111 After an assiduous review and a second hard look at the records of this case, the Court is constrained to reconsider its initial findings considering that the enumerated sales below are indeed supported by PEZA certifications and, correspondingly, should be allowed: Exhibit No. Customer Amount "P-60-345" Nippon Micrometal Corp Phils p 23,500.00 "P -60-641" Nippon Super Precision Phils Corp 47,000.00 "P-60-696" Nippon Micrometal Corp Phils 41,760.00 "P -60-111 7" Nippon l\!Iicrometal Corp Phils 11,536.96 "P-60-127 5" Nippon Micrometal Corp Phils 30,751.32 "P-62-21" Dyson Electronics PTE LTD 1,400.00 "P-62-119" Dyson Electronics PTE LTD 1,400.00 "P-62-299" F Tech S and F Philippines Inc 3,804.50 "P-62-327" Dvson Electronics PTE LTD 1,400.00 TOTAL P162,552. 78 However, although shown to have been supported with PEZA certifications, the following official receipts (ORs) are still disallowed for the reasons stated below: Exhibit No. Customer Amount 1. f'ailure to indicate the nature ~f.ren;ice protJided; onjy "1;ariott.r im;oice.r" which are not .ljJecijied "P-60-321" Nippon Micrometal Corp Phils p 81,473.49 "P-60-431" Nippon Micrometal Corp Phils 86,158.77 "P-60-590" Nippon Micrometal Corp Phils 52,474.75 "P -60-712" Nippon Micrometal Corp Phils 65,145.10 "P-62-338" Eaton Industries Philippines 54,090.15 "P-62-338" Eaton Industries Philippines 129,968.21 "P-72-18" STMicroelectronics Inc 139,540.54 Subtotal P608,851.01 2. Fai!Jtre to altad1 !he Ja!eJ imJoiceJ indicated in the OR "P-62-248" Dyson Electronics PTE J ~TD p 1,400.00 "P-62-360" Dyson Electronics PTE LTD 1,400.00 "P-62-361" Dyson Electronics PTE LTD 1,400.00 "P-62-425" Dyson Electronics PTE LTD 1,400.00 "P-62-490" Dyson Electronics PTE LTD 1,400.00 Subtotal p 7,000.00 3. S a!e.r i;Z/!oiceJ a!!ac!Jed to the 0 R are incomplete "P-60-795" Nippon I\iiicrometal Corp Phils p 63,060.00 "P-60-1353" Nippon Super Precision Phils Corp 81,000.00 Subtotal P144,060.00 ..f. Name ~/at.rtomer in OR i.r d{/j'eren!jiw7z name in PEZA cert~jication "P-62-9" Tokai Electronics Philippines Inc p 20,413.37 "P-54-18" [Tokai Medical Products Philippines Inc] "P -62-51" Wu Kong Singapore PTE Ltd 4,886.90 "P-54-68" [Wu Kong Singapore PTE Ltd (Phil Branch)] ~

AMENDED DECISION CTA Case No. 11111 "P-62-84" Alibata Limited Manila Branch 3,830.50 "P 54 176" [F Tech S&F Phi~nes Inc] "P-62-433" Wu Kong Singapore PTE Ltd 8,862.00 "P 54 68" [Wu Kong Singapore PTE Ltd (Phil Branch)] "P-63-10" Tokai Electronics Philippines Inc 6,435.52 "P 54 18" [Tokai Medical Products Philippines Inc] "P-70-7" Tokai Electronics Philippines Inc 46,260.87 "P 54 18" [Tokai Medical Products Philippines Inc] "P-72-2" STf'viicroclcctronics PTE Ltd 24,369.16 "P 54 149" [STlviiCROELECTRONICS, INC.] Subtotal P115,058.32 I TOTAL J P874,969.33 As for petitioner's sales to non-resident foreign corporations (NRFCs), the following ORs assailed by petitioner should still remain disallowed based on the grounds stated below: Exhibit No. Customer Amount 1. Name ofau!omer in OR iJ· differentj/vm name in SEC Cer!fjicale ofNon-Regi.rtration "P-60-942" Nippon Express China Co Ltd Qingdao Br p 16,975.69 "P -60-1 088" Nippon Express China Co Ltd Qingdao Br 4,219.38 "P-60-1241" Nippon Express China Co Ltd Qingdao Br 7,553.96 Subtotal p 28,749.03 2. Sale no/ paidfor in acceptable Jorez~gn mrren~y e1;idenced l~y ORJ· denominated in Philippine peJoJ "P-60-955" Nippon Express Co Ltd Air Fre p 65,747.17 "P-60-9 56" Nippon Express Co Ltd Kobe 2,738.39 "P-60-11 01" Nippon Express Co Ltd Air Fre 35,746.87 "P-60-1255" Nippon Express Co Ltd Air Ftc 63,116.26 Subtotal p 167,348.69 3. IJYithott/ pro~/ofimmpomtion Oli!Jide the PhilippineJ "P-64-22" Nippon Express de Mexico SA De p 667,774.45 Subtotal p 667,774.45 +.Nature ~/Jei7Jice indicated in OR iJ,general and not Jpecijic "P-72-31" Nippon Express China Co Ltd p 1,904,073.17 "P-72-44" Nippon Express China Co Ltd 2,009,363.80 Subtotal P3,913,436.97 TOTAL P4,777,309.14 \'\lith regard to the disallowed zero-rated sales for failure to indicate the nature of service rendered as required by Section 113(B) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the Court finds no reason to reconsider the same, since the said law categorically states that "the date of transaction, quantity, unit cost and description of the goods or properties or nature of the service", among others, "shall be indicated in the VAT invoice or VAT official receipt". Additionally, since petitioner's primary purpose in its Amended Articles of Incorporation is to "engage in the business of forwarder for the combin;t.

AMENDED DECISION CTA Case No. 11111 transportation by air, sea or land from one point of receipt to a point of destination; to operate container depot, warehousing, storage, hauling and packing facilities; to engage in the business of international air and sea freight and cargo forwarders, hauling, carrying, handling, distributing, loading and unloading of general cargoes and all classes of goods, wares and merchandise and to receive and collect fees for such services; and to engage in the operation of a Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier,"~ it can be reasonably concluded that the petitioner provides more than one type of service to its customers. Hence, indicating merely "services for the month of. .. " or "various invoices" does not comply with the invoicing requirement of the law, which calls for the need to indicate the nature of service rendered. In the same vein, the Court also initially found that there are ORs with specific invoice numbers indicated, but the attached invoice(s) do not match, or no invoice is attached at all. Perforce, without the presentation of all the invoices indicated in the OR, the Court cannot ascertain whether or not the amounts per attached invoices form part of the total amount reflected in the OR. Accordingly, petitioner's valid zero-rated sales amount to P80,093,417.89, computed as follows: Total zero-rated sales per Quarterly VAr Return P797,143,319.03 Less: Disallowances per ICPA 7,142,149.78 Valid zero-rated sales per ICPA findings P790,001,169.25 Less: 1\dditional disallowances per Court findings: Sales to entities without certifications from government agencies and/ or Certificate of Foreign Incorporation 90,429,669.59 Less: Zero-rated sales with PEZA certifications (162,552.78) Sales to NRFCs not denominated in foreign currency 228,924,808.80 Sales supported by ORs with no nature of services indicated 390,715,825.75 Valid and properly substantiated zero-rated sales P80,093,417.89 On the other hand, a review of petitioner's claimed input taxes reveals that the aggregate amount ofP421,989.12 should be disallowed for the reasons stated hereafter, to wit: O.R. NO./ EXHIBIT REGISTERED NAME OF COLLECT! DATE INPUT TAX NO. SUPPLIER ON OF O.R. RECEIPT 1. Nature q/tbe .remice i.r not indicated, no .raleJ im;oice attadJed j "P-73-574" NEP LOGISTICS INC 11076 10 29 2020 p 11,727.14! "P-73-575" NEP LOGISTICS INC 11109 11 25 2020 11,688.55 ! ---- "P-73-576" NEP LOGISTICS INC 11155 12 23 2020 11,674.08 ': 2 Exhibit "P-2-1", Docket- Vol. I, p. 481.

AMENDED DECISION CTA Case No. 11111 "P-73-588" NICHIYU ASL\LIFT PHILIPPINES 7850 11 20 2020 ::-1 6,964.29 I INC I "P-73-606" Nori Jun Cargo DeliYery Services 42 10 15 2020 l 840.0(~_J "P-73-607" Nori Jun Cargo DeliYery Services 43 11 16 2020 984.00 i +-· PRIJ\IE MOVER TRUCKING 10,152.00-1 "P-73-661" 576 10 02 2020 SERVICES "P-73-697" Republic Courier Services, Inc. 17671 12 01 2020 499.20 "P-73-699" Republic Courier Services, Inc. 40694 12 18 2020 2,548.68 --f-· SECURITY &SYSTEMS "P-73-731" 29312 10 20 2020 304.82 I l\IIONITORING i i SECURITY&SYSTEMS "P-73-732" 29944 12 29 2020 835.71 : MONITORING i Stratec Industrial Sales & General "P-73-742" 418 10 31 2020 4,553.571 Services Inc., "P-73-860" \'VestPac Solutions Factory, Inc., OR# 0001643 10 16 2020 600.00 "P-73-965" Schenker Philippines, Inc. OR# 0156438 11 09 2020 145.41 "P-73-966" TEILTRANS INCORPOR.XfED 8424 10 09 2020 1,320.00 "P-73-967" TESORO'S PRINTING PRESS 425 10 02 2020 867.86 GENCONMECHANICAL&ELECTR "P-7 4-27 4" 000137 10 05 2020 514.28 IC\L I Subtotal r 66,219.59 , 2. Amount q/ VAT daimed ~"YceedJ the amottnl per Jttpporting documen!J EXPLORER FREIGHT p "P-73-189" 6920 11 13 2020 660.00 ; CORPORATION -····j I I PREMIER MGT.& JANITORL "P-73-655" 2587 12 23 2020 270.72 I SOLUTNS PREMIER MGT.& JANITOlUJ "P-73-659" 3979 10 09 2020 8,768.34 SOLUTNS "P-73-751" Sublime-Elite Transport 124 11 27 2020 12,151.20 i "P-73-818" TRANS ONE PORT SOLUTION 3654 11 13 2020 66o.oo 1 "P-73-826" Transglobal Consolidators Inc., 14405 10 23 2020 5,243.64 i TRANSJ\IOD.AIJ INTERNATIONAL, "P-73-83 7" 8347 11 13 2020 2,943.oo I INC. I I "P-74-39" ALL N/\TION SECURITY AND 023644 11 27 2020 7,316.66 1 ! 1\SL\N STAR EXPRESS CARGO i "P-74-83" 3532 11 06 2020 2,185.71 1 FRWDR "P-7 4-17 4" CKR TRUCKING SERVICES 0036 12 15 2020 11 ,040.0(~ 1 "P-7 4-289" J.P. J\Iarzan Project Venture Inc., 759 12 15 2020 3,514.53 ! "P-7 4-51 0" TR1\NSCOM CY, INC. 08283 11 27 2020 3,875.73 1 1 "P-7 4-563" Decker Cargo Logistics Corp. 2546 11 16 2020 297,140.00 ! Subtotal P355,769.53-l -I TOTAL P421,989.12 , The foregoing ORs failed to comply with the invoicing requirement of indicating the nature of the service provided. \Vhile the Court considered those with specific invoice numbers, the supporting documents must be complete and attached to the corresponding OR. Otherwise, the unsupported input tax is disallowe'Y

AMENDED DECISION CTA Case No. 11111 Correspondingly, petitioner's valid input taxes amount to P101,152,493.32, computed as follows: Current Transactions: Input taxes from domestic purchases of goods p 3,027,833.97 Input taxes from domestic purchases of services 103,490,112.20 Total input taxes from current transactions P106,517,946.17 Less: Disallowances by the ICPA 5,317,631.57 Difference between VAT Returns and total amount verified by the ICPA (P106,517,946.17lcss P106,517,945.93) 0.24 p 101,200,314.36 Input taxes from domestic purchase of capital goods exceeding P1 rnillion: p 1,560,665.10 Deferred input taxes on capital goods exceeding P1 million from previous quarter 5,994,094.39 Input taxes on capital goods exceeding P1 million deferred to succeeding quarter {6,616,771.42) Total input taxes from domestic purchase of capital goods exceeding P1 million p 937,988.07 Less: Disallowances by the ICPA 563,819.98 Difference between VAT Returns and total amount verified by the ICPA (P937,988.07lcss P937,988.06) 0.01 374,168.08 Additional disallowance found by the Court (421,989.12) Valid and properly substantiated input taxes P101,152,493.32 Accordingly, petitioner's valid input taxes of P1 01,152,493.32 shall be allocated to its declared sales per quarterly VAT return for the period October 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020, 3 to wit: Valid Input Tax Amount Percentage -- Allocation Total zero-rated sales p 797' 143,319.03 50.2623145319296% p 50,841,584.35 Total VA Table sales 788,822,879.41 49.7376854680704% 50,310,908.97 Total Sales P1,585,966,198.44 100.00% P101,152,493.32 But since petitioner has an output tax liability for the same period in the amount of P94,658,745.53, the same shall be offset against its valid input taxes to arrive at the exccss/unutilized input taxes claimed for refund: Output tax p 94,658,745.53 Valid input tax attributable to VATable sales 50,310,908.97 Output tax still due p 44,347,836.56 Valid input tax attributable to zero-rated sales 50,841,584.35 Excess/ unutilized input taxes P6,493,747 .79 ji/' 3 Exhibit "P-17-1", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 152 to 153.

AMENDED DECISION CTA Case No. 11111 However, only a portion of the excess/unutilized input taxes can be deemed refundable according to the ratio of petitioner's valid zero-rated sales to the total declared zero-rated sales, computed below as follows: Amount Percentage Valid zero-rated sales p 80,093,417.89 10.0477311893504% Invalid zero-rated sales 717,049,901.14 89.9522688106496% Total declared zero-rated sales P797,143,319.03 100.00% In sum, only P652,474.32 of the substantiated input taxes attributable to petitioner's valid zero-rated sales can be refundable, as computed below: Excess/unutilized input taxes p 6,493,747.79 Multiply by the ratio of valid zero-rated sales 10.0477311893504% Refundable excess/unutilized input taxes p 652,474.32 Moreover, with regard to petitioner's insistence that the ICPA has recommended the partial granting of petitioner's claim for refund amounting to P6,458,316.16,~ suffice to state that this Court is not bound by the findings of the ICPA, as the findings and conclusions of the latter may be challenged by the parties, and arc still subject to the final evaluation of the Court. 5 Consequently, this Court is free to adopt or reject the findings of the ICPA, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Tttllet Prebon (Philippines), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. 6 That having been settled, the Court shall now proceed to determine the merit of petitioner's Motion for New Trial. Petitioner contends that it believed that the documents it provided were considered, and consequently submitted to the Court, by the ICPA., Mr. Neil U. Sison. However, it turned out that the ICP .A did not include and/ or consider certain documents that are material to the refund claim, particularly, PEZA Certifications covering specific zero-rated sales and the parties' offsetting arrangement. 1\s such, petitioner insists that such omission constitutes "mistake" and/ or "excusable negligence" within the meaning of Section 1(a), Rule 37 of the Revised Rules of Court. Unfortunately, the Court is not convinced. For one, apart from the being a bare allegation, petitioner did not adduce evidence to corroborate its claim that the ICPA committed a mistake in~ 4 Exhibit "P-133", Docket- Vol. I, p. 409. 5 Rule 13, Sec. 3, Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA). 6 G.R. No. 257219, July 15, 2024.

AMENDED DECISION CTA Case No. 11111 considering all documents presented by petitioner in preparing his Report. As correctly pointed out by respondent, petitioner only attached the _Affidavit of N!erit of its Finance N!anager, &Is. Elizabeth D. Quingquing, instead of the ICPA himself, who purportedly committed the mistake; as such, there was no confirmation made by the ICPA. on the said matter. Standing alone, petitioner's self-serving claim does not merit this Court's consideration. It is basic in the rule of evidence that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof. In short, mere allegations are not evidence. 7 Also, jurisprudence is clear that excusable negligence is "one which ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against," and these circumstances should be properly alleged and proved. 8 In this case, had the petitioner exercised reasonable diligence by carefully reviewing the ICPA's Report and judicial1\Jfidavit of the ICP1\, it could have discovered sooner the alleged omission or mistake committed by the ICPA even prior to the issuance of the assailed Decision. Thus, the Court agrees with the respondent's position that there was negligence or oversight on the part of petitioner, and such negligence cannot support petitioner's claim for relief from judgment. At this juncture, it bears stressing that a liberal application of the rules of procedure to suit the petitioner's purpose would clearly pave the way for injustice, as it would be rewarding an act of negligence with undeserved tolerance. 9 For this reason, a denial of petitioner's plea for new trial is in order. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration and/or New Trial is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the dispositive portion of the Decision dated February 5, 2025, is hereby amended to read as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated February 5, 2025, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. 1\ccordingly, respondent is ORDERED TO REFUND petitioner the amount of P652,474.32, representing unutilized input taxes for the period October 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020." SOORDEREDY 7 Real vs. Bela, G.R. No. 146224, January 6, 2007. 8 Far East Fuel Corp. v. Airtropolis Consolidators Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 254267, February 1, 2023, citing Lui Enterprises, Inc. v. Zuellig Pharma Corporation, 729 Phil. 440, 442 (2014). 9 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. A. Soriano, Corp., Court of Tax Appeals and Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113703, January 31, 1997.

AMENDED DECISION CTA Case No. 11111 SO ORDERED. ~- ~~---- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice WE CONCUR: (On Le41ve) CORAZON G. FERRER-FLORES 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. ~.~J'- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice