REPUBL IC OF THE PHILIPP INES

Court of Tax Appeals

QUEZON CITY

Special Third Division

HI-STAKE S GAMING, CTA CASE NO. 10172

INCORPO RATED
Petitioner, Members:
RINGPIS-L IBAN, Chairperson , and
-versus- MODESTO -SAN PEDRO, JJ

COMMISS IONER OF Promulgated:

INTERNA L REVENUE , J 'W)I) Ul S
Respondent. c.AM.J 2
X ---------------------------------------------------------------~-'7-----------~-·--Xl-t-~- e?.l-·------------------- X

DECIS ION

MODESTO -SAN PEDRO, J.:

The Case

1
Before the Court is a Petition for Review, filed by petitioner Hi-Stakes
Gaming Incorporated against respondent Commissio ner of Internal Revenue
("CIR"), seeking the reversal of the Decision rendered by respondent holding
petitioner liable for deficiency corporate income tax covering taxable year
201 1 in the amount of P6,539,087 .94, inclusive of interest, surcharge, and
compromise penalty. 2

The Parties

Petitioner is authorized and licensed by the Philippine Amusement and

Gaming Corporation ("PAGCOR ") to conduct, maintain, and operate the
business of games, recreation, and am usement and is duly registered with the
Bureau of Internal Revenue ("BIR"). 3

Meanwhile, respondent is the duly appointed Commissio ner of the BIR

empowered to perform duties of said office including, among others, the
power to decide on disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes,/

1
See Petition for Review, Records pp. 6-26.
Pre-Trial O rder, id., pp. 262-268.
Ibid.
DEC'ISION
C l A Case o. 10 172
Page 2 of II

matters
fees, or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other
arisin g under the Natio nal Inter nal Reve nue Code of 1997 ("Tax Code'') or
4
other laws or portions there of administered by the BIR.

The Facts

r
The BIR, through Regional Direc tor Araceli L. Franc isco, issued Lette
58393 ,
of Authority ("LO A") No. LOA-21 8-20 l3-00 00006 5/LA 20 10000
Reve nue
dated 9 July 2013, authorizing Grou p Super visor Clarita Beltra n and
and other
Offic er Marie Ann Guev arra to exam ine the books of accou nts
taxable
accou nting records of petiti oner for all internal revenue taxes cover ing
year2 0 11 .5

t
On 13 Octob er 2014, petiti oner received a Prelim inary Asses smen
Regional
Notic e, dated 7 Octob er 20 14, issued by Offic er in Charg e-Ass istant
le year
Direc tor Conra do C. Lee ("OIC -Assi stant RD Lee") cover ing taxab
2011. 6

28
Thereafter, the BIR issued a Form al Lette r of Dema nd, dated
alleged
Octob er 20 14, with asses smen t notices asses sing petitioner for
year 2011
deficiency income tax in the amou nt of P6,05 5,509 .36 for taxable 7
pursu ant to Reve nue Mem oran dum Circular ("RM C") No. 33-20
13.

r
On 20 Nove mber 2014, OIC- Assis tant RD Lee8 issued a Lette
filed a
ackno wledg ing receipt of petitioner' s prote st to the PAN. Petiti oner
Dece mber
Lette r of Prote st/ Requ est for Reconsideration to the FLO, dated 2
9
2014, in response.

t,
Respo ndent then issued the Final Decision of Dispu ted Asses smen
dated 27 July 2015,
10
to which petitioner filed a Requ est for
11
Reconsideration.

12
CIR rendered its Final Decision dated 15 Augu st 2019.

iew /
On 26 Septe mber 2019, petiti oner filed the instant Petition for Rev

4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid; Subject : Income Tax and Franchi se Tax Due from the Philippi
ne Amusement and Gaming
Corporation (PAGCOR), its Contractees and Licensees, 17 April 201 3.
8 Pre-Trial Order, Records, pp. 262-268 .
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
II Ibid.
12
Ibid.
DECIS IO:\
CTA Case No. 10172
Page 3 of I I

13
Sum mon s.
On 9 Octo ber 2019 , resp onde nt CIR was served with

wer 14 and raised the

On 10 Janu ary 2020 , resp onde nt filed his Ans
fol lowi ng spec ial and affir mati ve defe nses:

case beca use the

( 1) The Cou rt has no juris dict ion over the pres ent
anda ble;
asse ssm ent has beco me final, exec utor y, and dem
ione r is liable to
(2) Assu min g that this Cou rt has juris dict ion, petit
ble year 2011 ;
pay the asse ssed defi cien cy inco me taxe s for taxa
and
ses inco me tax to
(3) RM C No. 33-2013 is valid inso far as it impo
licensees and cont racte es ofPA GCO R.

the BIR Rec ords of

The n, on 28 Janu ary 2020 , resp onde nt tran smit ted
(393 ) page s and filed the
the case cons istin g of thre e hund red nine ty-th ree
rt took note in a Min ute
corr espo ndin g Com plia nce, of whic h the Cou
15
16
Reso lutio n, date d 31 Janu ary 2020 .

Brie fs on 27 Aug ust

Peti tion er and resp onde nt filed their Pre-Tria l
18
2020 17 and 28 Aug ust 2020, respectively. Foll owin g this, the Pre- Trial
19
Con fere nce was held on 1 Sept emb er 2020.

Issues ("JS FI") on

The parties filed thei r Join t Stip ulati on of Fact s and 21
20 h the Cou rt adm itted and appr oved in its Reso lution,
1 Octo ber 2020 , whic
, the Pre-Trial Ord er was
date d 7 Octo ber 2020 . Thu s, on 20 Janu ary 2021
rend ered . 22

esses:
Dur ing trial , petit ione r pres ented the following witn

t, who testi fied and

(l)R aym und o V. Naz ario , petit ione r's Pres iden
23 on 2 Dec emb er
identified his Jy.Aicial Affi davi t duri ng the hear ing
2020 ;24 an d/

13 Records, p. 64.
14
/d., p. 87- IOI.
15
!d., pp. 106- 109.
16 !d., p. 110.
17
/d., pp. 11 3- 118.
18
/d., pp. 175- 180.
19
!d.' pp. 334-3 36.
20
!d., pp. 2 19-22 1.
21 /d., pp. 230-23 I .
22
/ d., pp. 262-268.
23 Exhibits " P- 12" and " P- 12- 1", id., pp. 12 1- 128.
24 !d., pp. 237-2 39.
DECISIO N
CTA Case o. 10 172
Page 4 of II

who
(2) Girlie Garci a-Sal azar, petiti oner' s forme r Chief Acco untan t,
testified and identified her Judicial Affid avit durin g the hearin g on
25

26
11 Febru ary 2021.

h
Petiti oner formally offere d its docum entary evide nce on 15 Marc
Offer of
2021,27 with respo ndent 's Comm ent [Re: Petiti oner's Formal
on 26 May
Evide nce] filed throu gh priva te couri er and received by this Court
2021. 28

of
In a Resol ution , dated 16 July 2021 , the Court admit ted all
its "P-5",
petiti oner's forma lly offere d docum entar y evide nce excep t Exhib
Motio n 29
"P-6", "P-7", "P-14", "P-14-1", and "P-14-2". Upon petiti oner's
set a date
with respo ndent 's Comm ent, the Court admit ted Exhib it "P-5" and
30
origin als
for Comm ission er's Heari ng for comp arison of photo copies with the
5 Janua ry
of Exhib its "P-14", "P-14-1 ", and "P-14-2" in a Resol ution , dated
32
petiti oner
2022. 31 Durin g the Comm ission er's Heari ng on I Marc h 2022,
note in
comp ared the photo copie s with the origin als of which the Court took
33
a Minu te Resol ution dated 18 Marc h 2022.

There after, respo ndent prese nted the follow ing witne sses:

her
(1) Reve nue Offic er Marie Ann Santo s, who testified and identified35
Judicial Affid avit durin g the hearin g on 22 Febru ary 2022; and
34

(2)Re venue Offic er Katri na P. Pasio n, who testifi ed and identi fied her
37
Judicial Affid avit durin g the hearin g on 10 Marc h 2022.
36

h
Respo ndent forma lly offered his docum entary evide nce on 21 Marc
2022,38 with petiti oner' s Comm ent to the Form al Offer of Evide nce filed on 3
40 ted all
Marc h 2022.39 In a Resol ution , dated 1 1 May 2022, the Court admit
of respo ndent 's formally offere d evid enc e/

25
Exhibits ··P-13" and "P-13-1 ", id., pp. 243-246 .
26
/d. . pp. 276-278 .
27
/d. . pp. 289-306 .
28
/d. . pp. 364-365 .
1), id., pp. 373-377.
29
Motion for Recon sideration (ofthe Resolut ion dated July 16, 202
1
°
11
Comme nt (on Petition er's Motion for Recon siderati on), id., pp. 382-386 .
/d. , pp.390 -391.
12 !d. , pp. 402-403
13 !d. , p. 450.
1
~ Exhib its ·'R- 1 I" and " P-I 1-a", id. , pp. 2 1 1-216.
15
/d. , p. 397.
16
Exhibits ··R-13" and " R-1 3- 1··, id., pp. 41 1-415.
17
/d. , pp. 441-443 .
18
/d. , pp. 451-456 .
19
/d. , pp. 459-463 .
40
!d., pp. 468-469 .
DECISI ON
CTA Case No. 10172
Page 5 of II

Thereafter, respondent filed his Memorandum on 27 June 2022. 41

Petitioner filed its Memorandum on 25 July 2022. 42

With the filing of both parties' respective memoranda, the case was
submitted for decision on 2 August 2022. 43

Hence this Decision.

The Issues44

The issues submitted for this Court's resolution are as follows:

(1) Whether petitioner is subject to RMC No. 33-2013 and

subsequently liable for deficiency income tax in the
amount ofP2,885 ,211.86 for taxable year 2011 ; and

(2) Whether the protest to the FLO was filed on time.

Arguments of the Pa rties

Petitioner 's Arguments45

Petitioner claims that it was denied the right to due process, explaining
that it received the PAN, dated 7 October 2014, only on 13 October 2014.
Following respondent's own rules, particularly Section 3.1.2 of Revenue
R egulations ("Rev. R egs.'') No. 12-99, it had fifteen (15) days from receipt
of PAN or until 28 October 2014 within which to file a protest or motion for
reconsideration/reinvestigation. Petitioner believes it was not given the said
opportunity to respond when respondent issued the FLD/FAN on 28 October
2014. Petitioner, however, admits that it filed its protest only on 11 November
2014 but maintains that the FLO, dated 28 October 2014, is void for violation
of due process.

Assuming the FLO is valid, petitioner argues that its Protest to the FLO
was filed on time. Petitioner relies on its statement in its Protest Letter that a
copy of the FLO was "received on November 11, 2014". It claims that
respondent's evidence (i.e. Affidavit of Service) to establish petitioner' s
supposed receipt of the FLO/FAN on 5 November 2014 cannot be given /
weight because it was submitted belatedly and was not part of the evidence/

41
/d., pp. 470-494.
42
!d. , pp. 496-5 18.
43
/d. , p. 520.
44
/d., pp. 166-168.
45
Petitioner's Memorandum , id., pp. 496-5 18 .
 Dt:CISIO'\
CIACasc o 10172
Page 6 o f II

during pre-trial. It also claims that the respond ent was not able to prove that
the BIR's resort to substitu ted service is proper, pursuan t to RMC No. 40-
2019. Even assumin g the protest was filed three (3) days late, petition er argues
that the case is meritori ous and needs to be taken up, citing Republi c v.
Daondo n.46

Finally, petition er maintain s that its income from bingo games should
only be subject to franchise tax in lieu of all kinds of taxes.

Respon dent's Argume nts 47

Respond ent maintain s that this Court has no jurisdict ion over the
assessm ent that has become final, executo ry, and demand able due to failure
of petition er to file a timely protest to the FLO/FA N. Accordi ng to respond ent,
records show that petition er received the FLO/FA N on 5 Novemb er 2014. It
counters that petition er's stateme nt in its Protest Letter on the date of receipt
of the FLO/FA N is self-serv ing. Citing Section 228 of the Tax Code,
respond ent claims that petition er had until 5 Decemb er 2014 to file a valid
protest on the assessm ent. Howeve r, petition er belatedl y filed its protest on 8
Decemb er 20 14.

Assumi ng this Court has jurisdic tion, respond ent asserts that petition er
is still liable to pay the assessed deficien cy income taxes for taxable year 2017.
Accordi ng to respond ent, petition er's franchi se with PAGCO R is limited to
conduct traditional bingo operatio ns. It does not extend to operatio n of
casinos. Thus, the exemption granted by P.D. 1869 on the paymen t of 5%
franchis e tax, in lieu of corpora te income tax, does not extend to petitione r.

Respond ent also points out that RMC No. 33-2013 expressly provides
that income from traditional bingo, electron ic bingo, and other bingo
variatio ns are income from "other related operatio ns" that are subject to
corpora te income tax. He also argues that RMC No. 33-2013 is merely a
clarifica tory issuance and did not alter, modify, or amend the intent of Section
13(2)(b) of P.D. No. 1869.

The Ruling of the Court

The instant Petition for Review is meritori ous. /

46
G. R. No. 2 10540, 19 April 2016.
47
Memorandum , Records, pp. 470-494.
 OEC ISIO "'
CTA Case No. I 0172
Page 7 of I I

Pe tit ion er' s rig ht to du e pr oc

ess wa s
vio lat ed wh en res po nd en t iss
ued the
FL D/ FA N be fo re the lapse of
the 15-
da y pe rio d fro m tax pa ye r's
rec eip t
of the PA N an d, thu s, the as
se ssm en t
is void.

Pe titi on er cla im s tha t the FL

D ts invalid for ha vin g been
vio lat ion of its right to due pro iss ued m
cess.

Th e Co urt ag ree s with petition

er.

Section 228 of the Tax Code pro

vid es for the du e process requir
for the issuance of an assess me ements
nt as follow s:

" SE C. 22 8. Pro tes ting of As

ses sm ent. - Wh en the Co
dul y authori zed rep res entati mm iss ioner o r his
ve find s tha t pro per tax es sho
he shall firs t not ify the tax pay uld be ass ess ed,
er of his fin din gs: . ..

Th e tax pay ers shall be inf orm

ed in wr itin g of the law an
facts on wh ich the ass ess me d the
nt is ma de ; oth erw ise , the ass
be void. ess me nt sha ll

Wi thi n a per iod to be prescr

ibe d by im plementi ng rules
reg ula tio ns, the tax pa ye r sha an d
ll be req uir ed to respo nd to
said notic e.
If the tax pa ye r fails to res
po nd , the Co mm iss ion er or
aut ho riz ed rep res ent ati ve sha his duly
ll iss ue an ass ess me nt bas
fin din gs. ed on his

Su ch assess me nt ma y be
pro tes ted adm ini stra ti ve ly
reques t for rec ons ideration by filing a
or re investigatio n wit hin thi
rece ipt of the ass ess me nt in rty (3 0) day s fro m
such fo rm and ma nne r as ma
im ple me nting rul es and reg ula y be pre scribe d by
tio ns.

Wi thi n sixty (60 ) day s fro

m filing o f the pro test, all
sup por tin g doc um ents sha ll rele vant
hav e bee n sub mi tted ; o the rw
sha ll bec om e final. ise , the ass essme nt

If the pro test is deni ed in w ho

le o r in par t, or is no t acted upo
o ne hun dred eig hty ( 180 ) day n wit hin
s fro m sub mi ssion o f doc um
ad versely affect ed by the dec ent s, the tax pay er
isio n o r ina ctio n may app eal
Ta x Ap pea ls wit hin thi rty to the Co urt of
(3 0) day s fro m rec eipt of the
fro m the lap se of one hun said dec isio n, o r
dred eig hty ( 180)-d ay period
dec isio n shall bec om e fin al, ; o the rw ise , the
exe cutory and dem and abl e."
(Em pha sis and und ers coring
, Ou rs.)

Th e foreg oin g pro vis ion is im

ple me nte d by Section 3 of RR
as amen de d, to w it / No. 12-99,
 DEC ISI ON
CTA Case No. 10172
Page 8 of II

"SE C. 3. Due Proces s Re qui rem

ent in the Issuance of a Defici
Assessment. - ency Ta x

3.1 Mode of procedure in the

issuance of a deficiency tax ass
ess me nt:
3.1.1 Prel iminary A ssessm ent
Notice (PA N ). - If after review
eva luation by the Co mm iss ion and
er or his dul y authorized repres
the case may be, it is determ ine entative, as
d that there exi sts suffici ent bas
the tax pay er for any deficiency is to assess
tax or tax es, the sa id Office sha
the taxpayer a Pre lim ina ry As ll issu e to
sessm ent No tice (PAN) for the
a ssessm ent . It shall sho w in pro posed
det ail the fac ts and the law ,
reg ula tio ns, or jur isp rud enc rul es and
e on wh ich the pro pos ed ass
based (see illu stration in AN NE ess me nt is
X "A" hereof).

If the tax pay er fail s to res

po nd wit hin fift een (15) days
d ate of rec eip t of the PA N, he fro m
sha ll be con sid ered in defaul t,
cas e, a Fo rm al Le tte r of De in which
ma nd and Fin a l Assessm ent
(FL D/F AN) sha ll be issu ed No tice
cal lin g for pav ment of the
deficie ncy tax liability, inclus ive tax pay er' s
of the app licabl e pen a lties.
If the tax pay er, wit hin fifteen
(1 5) day s fro m dat e of receip
the PAN, res po nds tha t he/it t of
disag rees wit h the findin gs of
tax or tax es, an FL D/F AN sha deficie ncy
ll be issu ed wit hin fifteen (15)
filing/sub mi ssion of the tax pay days fro m
er' s res pon se, calling for pay me
tax pay er' s deficiency tax liabilit nt of the
y, inclus ive of the a pplica ble pen
" a lties.
(Em pha sis and und erscoring, Ou
rs.)

Ba sed on the foregoing, the

BI R is required to giv e the tax
pe riod of fifteen (15) days fro pa ye r a
m the date of receipt of the
response or protest ag ain st the PA N to file its
same. It is only after receiv ing
respo nse or the lapse of the sai the tax payer's
d 15-day period tha t the BI R
FL D/ FAN. can issue the

In Prim e Steel Mill, In c. v. Co

mm ission er of In ter na l R even ue 48
Su pre me Co urt em ph asi zed the , the
im po rta nc e of the PAN stage an
strict ob ser va nc e by the BI R of d en joined the
the 15-day to iss ue the FL D/ FA
N:

'· In several cases, thi s Co urt has

enj oin ed str ict obs erv an ce by
BI R of the prescr ibe d pro ced the
ure for the iss uan ce of assessme
in ord er to up ho ld the taxpay nt no tices
ers ' con stit ution al rights .
In the oft-cited cas e of Commiss
ioner of Internal Revenue v. Me
Star Superama , Inc., the Co urt tro
held that the sendin g of a PA N
parcel of the due pro ces s req is part and
uirem ent in the issuanc e of a
ass ess me nt and the BIR mu st deficiency tax
strictly c~ply with the req uir
dow n by the law and by its ow em ent s laid
n ru le s/

48
G.R. No. 249 153 , 12 Septem ber
2022.
 DECI 10;\
CTA Case No. 10172
Page 9 of II

The imp orta nce of the PAN stag e of the

asse ssme nt proc ess
cann ot be disc ount ed as it presents an oppo
rtun ity for both the
taxp ayer and the BIR to settl e the case at the
earli est possible time
with out need for the issua nce of a FAN.

In the very rece nt case of Commissioner of

Internal Revenue v.
Yumex Philippin es Corp., the Cou rt had occa sion
to state that the 15-day
peri od prov ided und er R even ue Reg ulations No.
12-9 9 for a taxp ayer to
reply to a PAN shou ld also be stric tly obse rved
by the BIR. The Court
hi ghli ghte d that "[o)nly afte r receiving the taxp
ayer 's resp onse or in case
of the taxp ayer ' s defa ult can resp onde nt issue
the FLD/FAN."
Whi le Yumex rests on sligh tly different factual
circu msta nces , it may
neve rthel ess appl y analogou sly to the case
at bench. The re can be no
subs tant ial com plian ce with the due proc ess requ
irem ent whe n the BIR
completely igno red the 15-d ay peri od by issui ng
the FAN and FLD even
befo re peti tion er was able to subm it its Rep ly
to the PAN.
As the Cou rt also held in Yum ex, "(t]hat [the
taxpayer] was able to
file a prote st to the FLD/FAN is of no moment."
"Sec . 3.1.2 of RR No. 12-
99 expl icitly grants the taxp ayer fifteen ( 15) days
from rece ipt of the PAN
to file a response."

In the same vein , it is besi de the poin t that peti

tion er was able to
subm it a "we ll-pr epar ed protest lette r."
The fact rem ains that
resp ond ent viol ated petit ione r's righ t to due proc
ess by issui ng a FAN
with out even awa iting its reply to the PAN.

Well-settled is the rule that an asse ssme nt

that fails to stric tly
com ply with the due proc ess requ irem ents set
forth in Section 228 of
the Tax Cod e and Rev enue Reg ulati ons No. 12-9
9 is void and prod uces
no effect."
(Em phas is and unde rsco ring supplied; citations
omit ted.)

In the present case, records show that peti tion er

received the PAN49 on
°
13 Oct obe r 2014. 5 Cou ntin g fifteen (15) days
therefrom, peti tion er had until
28 Oct obe r 20 14 with in which to fi le its response
or prot est against the PAN.
How eve r, resp ond ent issued the FLO/FAN51
on 28 Oct obe r 201 4, the said
fifteenth day. Cle arly , resp ond ent did not wai t
for the lapse of the mandatory
fifteen ( 15)-day period prio r to the issuance of
the FLO /FA N.

Res pondent's issuance of the FLO/FAN prio r

to the lapse of the period
for peti tion er to respond to the PAN is not cure
d by peti tion er's subs equ ent
filing of its protest. Suc h prem atur e issuance
of the FLO/FA N violates
peti tion er' s right to proceduraJ due process, rend
erin g the FLO/FA N fatally
infirm and , therefore, vo id. /

49
Ex hibits " R-7", " R-7- 1", and " R-7-2 ", BIR Reco
50 rds, pp. 147- 149
Ex hibit " R-7-4 ", id., p. 15 1.
51
Exhibits " R-8", " R-8-1 ", " R-8-2 ", " R-8-3 ", " R-9",
" R-9-1 ", id., pp. 152-158.
 DECISIO:\
CTA Ca se o. 10 172
Page 10 of II

In deed, in Pilipinas
Sh el l Petroleum Corpo
o f In te rn al R ev en ue ,52 ration vs. Commission
th e Su pr em e C ou rt ca
te
er
of su ch no n- co m pl ia go ric al ly ru le d on th
nc e w ith st at ut or y an e effect
d pr oc ed ur al du e proc
ess, viz.:
··rn short, re sp on de nt mer
wh ich did not gi ve PS ely relied on the fin
PC am pl e op po rtu ni dings of th e Ce nt er
in de ed pr ot es te d th e ty to ai r its side. W hi
fo rm al as se ss m en t, le PS PC
fa ct th at it w as de pr su ch does no t de ni gr
iv ed of st at ut or y an at e th e
co nt es t th e as sess m en d pr oc ed ura l du e pr
t be fo re it w as iss ue d oc ess to
(Em ph as is and un de rsc ... . "
or in g, Ou rs. )

With th e C ou rt 's co nc
lu sion th at th e as se ss
for th e C ou rt to di sc us m en t is void, th er e is
s th e ot he r issues rais no need
ed by th e parties.

W H E R E FO R E , pr em
is es co ns id er ed , th e
filed by H i- St ak es G in st an t Petition fo r R
am in g In co rp orat ed ev ie w
D ec is io n on D is pu te is he re by G R A N T E
d A ss es sm en t da te d 27 D . Th e Final
de fic ie nc y ta xe s in th Ju ly 2015 as se ss in g pe
e total am ou nt of P6 tit io ne r for
su rc ha rg e, and co ,5 39 ,0 87 .94, in cl us iv
m pr om is e pe na lty e of interest,
W IT H D R A W N . is he re by C A N C E
L L E D an d

SO O R D E R E D .

M A R IA R O W E N A M
O D E ST O-SAN PE DRO
A ss oc ia te Ju st ic e
WE CONCUR:

r~ . ~ _ ,
'- -
MA. B E L E N M. R IN
G PI S- L IB A N
A ss oc ia te Ju st ic e

52
G.R. No . 172598. 2 1
Dece mber 2007.
 DEC ISIO N
CTA Case o. 10172
Page II of II

A TT ES TA TI O N

I att est tha t the con clu sio ns in

the abo ve De cis ion we re rea che
con sul tat ion bef ore the cas e wa d in
s ass ign ed to the wr ite r of the op
Co urt 's Di vis ion . ini on of the

MA. BELE N M. RINGPIS-LIB

AN
As soc iat e Jus tic e
Ch air person

C ER TI FI C A TI O N

Pu rsu ant to Ar tic le VH I, Se cti on

13 of the Co nst itu tio n and the Di
Ch air per son ' s At tes tat ion , it is vis ion
her eby certified tha t the con clu
abo ve De cis ion we re rea che d in sions in the
con sul tat ion bef ore the cas e wa
the wr ite r of the op ini on of the s ass igned to
Court.

Pre sid ing Justic e