"\,

l\epublic of tbe tlbHippines

~upreme ~ourt
;fftilanila
·6 """".. .. .cl/D
SECOND DIVISION

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, G.R. No. 210191

Petitioner,
Present:

CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

PERLAS-BERNABE,*
- versus - CAGUIOA,
REYES, J. JR., and
HERNANDO, * JJ.

THE PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN

and THE PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR
OF PANGASINAN,
.Respondents.

x:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DECISION

REYES, JR. J., J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the

Rules of Court, questioning the Decision2 dated November 11, 2013 of the
Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc in CTA EB Case No. 937, which
affirmed the uniform rulings of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals
(LBAA) in LBAA Case Nos. P-03-001 and P-06-001 and Central Board of
Assessment Appeals (CBAA) in CBAA Case Nos. L-52 and L-81.

On wellness leave.
Additional Member per S.O. No. 2630 dated December 18, 2018.
Rollo, pp. 27-71.
Penned by Court of Tax Appeals Associate Justice Caesar A. Casanova, with Presiding Justice Roman
G. Del Rosario, concurring and dissenting, Associate Justices Juanito C. Castaneda, Jr., Lovell R.
Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, Amelia R.
Cotangco-Manalastas, and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, concurring; id. at I 0-22.

(
'
Decision 2 G.R. No. 210191

Factual Antecedents

Petitioner National Power Corporation (NPC) is a government-owned

and controlled corporation,. created and existing under Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 6395, as amended. NPC is mandated to undertake the production of
electricity from nuclear, geothermal, other sources, and the transmission of
electric power nationwide. 3

Pursuant to its mandate, on May 20, 1994, NPC entered into an

Energy Conversion Agreement 4 (ECA) with CEPA Pangasinan Electric
Limited (CEPA), a private corporation, for the construction, operation,· and
maintenance of the Sual Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant, whereby CEPA
agreed to supply a coal-fired thermal power station to NPC on a Build-
Operate-Transfer (BOT) basis to generate electricity, which electricity will
in tum be sold exclusively to NPC. CEPA subsequently became Mirant Sual
Corporation (Mirant) and now also known as Team Energy Power Holdings
Corporation (Team Energy). For purposes of this case, we shall use "Mirant"
to refer to CEPA, Mirant, or Team Energy as the company was called
"Mirant" when this case started with the LBAA. 5

Among the obligations undertaken by the NPC under the ECA was the
assumption of all real property taxes. Paragraph 11.1, Article 11 of the ECA,
viz.:

11.1 Tax Responsibilities. NPC shall be responsible for the payment of

x x x (ii) all real estate taxes and assessments, rates and other charges in
respect of the Site, the Ash Disposal Sites, the Pipelines, the buildings and
improvements thereon, the Infrastructure and the Power Station. 6

On December 3, 1994, a Memorandum of Agreement7 (MOA) was

entered into by Pangasinan Electric Corporation (PEC) (Mirant's
predecessor-in-interest) with NPC, the Province of Pangasinan, the
Municipality of Sual, and the Barangay of Pangascasan. 8

Pertinent provisions of the MOA state:

A. RESPONSIBILITIES OF NPC, DENR, PEC,

PROVINCE/MUNICIPALITY/BARANGAY

NPC

xx xx

6. Conform with the Local Government Code's regulations on the

Id. at 11.
Id. at 235-265.
Id. at 30.
6
Id. at 334 of the Agreement.
Id. at 196-203.
Id. at 196.

~
Decision 3 G.R. No. 210191

payment of the following taxes:

Realty tax to be paid upon the project site acquisition by

NPC.

xx xx

PEC started operating the power plant sometime in 1998.9

NPC religiously paid real property taxes from 1998 up to the first
quarter of 2003 for the land, buildings, machinery, and equipment pertaining
to the power plant. Notably, said machinery and equipment were declared in
the name of Mirant under Tax Declaration No. 3694. On the second quarter
of 2003, NPC stopped paying said taxes, purportedly pursuant to the
provisions of R.A. No. 7160, which grants certain exemptions from real
property tax liabilities. 10

This prompted the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Sual,

Pangasinan to issue a Notice of Assessment dated September 10, 2003 for
the payment of real property taxes thereon. 11

Invoking its entitlement to an exemption under the provisions of R.A.

No. 7160, NPC filed a petition for exemption with the LBAA, docketed as
LBAA Case No. P-03-001, praying for an order to be issued: (a) recalling
the Notice of Assessment dated September 10, 2003; (b) declaring the
machinery and equipment of the power to be exempt from real property tax,
arguing that the same are actually, directly, and exclusively used for power
generation, and as such are exempted from said taxes under Section 234(c) 12
of R.A. No. 7160; and (c) if not exempt, declaring that the subject
properties be classified as special under Section 216 13 of the same Act and as
such be given a lower assessment level. 14

LBAARuling

In its Resolution 15 dated April 15, 2004, the LBAA dismissed NPC's
petition for exemption for lack of merit. The LBAA ruled that NPC and/or
9
Id. at 334.
10
Id. at 335.
11
Id. at 335.
12
Sec. 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. -The following are exempted from payment of the real
property tax:
xx xx
(c) All machineries and equipment that are actually, directly and exclusively used by local water
districts and government owned or controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of
water and/or generation and transmission of electric power;
xx xx.
13
Sec. 216. Special Classes of Real Property. -All lands, buildings, and other improvements thereon
actually, directly and exclusively used for hospitals, cultural, or scientific purposes, and those owned
and used by local water districts, and government-owned or controlled corporations rendering essential
public services in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric
power shall be classified as special.
14
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991, approved on October 10, 1991.
15
Rollo, pp. 333-349.

(
Decision 4 G.R. No. 210191

Mirant's failure to file any claim for exemption within the 30 days from the
date of the declaration of the real property under Section 206 16 of R.A. No.
7160, coupled with the fact that NPC used to pay the real property taxes
thereon from 1998 up to the first quarter of 2003, estopped NPC from
claiming an exemption. More importantly, the LBAA found Mirant to be the
actual, direct, exclusive, and beneficial owner and user of the power,
buildings, machinery, and equipment, not NPC. Hence, the subject real
properties do not come under the coverage of Section 234( c) of R.A. No.
7160 nor to the special assessment providing for a lower assessment level of
ten percent ( 10%) under Section 216 of the same Act.

Accordingly, the subject real properties are not exempted from

payment of real property tax and, likewise, cannot be classified as a special
class with an assessment level of ten percent ( 1Oo/o) but should be assigned
with the assessment level of eighty percent (80% ).

Aggrieved, NPC filed an appeal to the CBAA, docketed as CBAA

17
Case No. L-52.

In the meantime, the Municipal Treasurer of Sual issued a letter with

the Updated Notice of Assessment and Tax Bill. Thus, NPC filed another
petition before the LBAA, docketed as LBAA Case No. P-06-001, which
18
was likewise dismissed by the LBAA in its Order dated July 18, 2007.

NPC also appealed the said Order to the CBAA, docketed as CBAA
Case No. L-81. 19

CBAARuling

On April 2, 2009, the CBAA issued an Order consolidating the two

20
appeals.

After evaluation of the arguments of both parties, the CBAA rendered

the assailed Decision 21 dated April 12, 2012, dismissing the appeals for lack
of merit. In the main, the CBAA ruled that NPC has no personality to claim
real property tax exemption for the subject machinery and equipment
considering that said machinery and equipment are actually, directly, and
exclusively used by Mirant, not NPC. In fact, Mirant is the owner of said
facilities until they were turned over to NPC.

16
Sec. 206. Proof of Exemption of Real Property from Taxation. - Every person by or for whom real
property is declared, who shall claim tax exemption for such property under this Title shall file with the
provincial, city or municipal assessor within thirty (30) days from the date of the declaration of real
property sufficient documentary evidence in support of such claim including corporate cha1iers, title of
ownership, articles of incorporation, by-laws, contracts, affidavits, certifications and mortgage deeds,
and similar documents.
17
Rollo, p. 13.
is Id.
19 Id.
20
Id. at 13-14.
21 Id.at172-192.

y
Decision 5 G.R. No. 210191

The same reasoning was used in ruling that the subject machinery and
equipment cannot be classified as a special class of real property for
purposes of being subject to a lower assessment level of ten percent ( 10%)
under Section 216 of the same Act. The subject facilities are owned by
Mirant, a private entity, hence, not covered by the special privilege under the
said provision.

Likewise, the CBAA ruled that NPC has no legal personality to claim
for exemption under Section 234(e) 22 of R.A. No. 7160, as well as the
depreciation allowance under Section 225 thereof, as the subject facilities
are not owned by NPC but by Mirant.

NPC's motion for reconsideration of the said Decision was also

denied by the CBAA in its Order23 dated July 31, 2012.

CTARuling

The CTA scrutinized the agreement between NPC and Mirant under
the BOT system and found that the ownership of the subject machinery and
equipment is clearly vested with Mirant until the transfer of the project to
NPC. Since the ownership and actual use of the subject facilities are with
Mirant, a non-exempt entity, the CTA sustained the LBAA and CBAA ruling
that NPC may not rightfully claim that it has the requisite legal interest to
question the assessment and assert tax exemptions under Sections 234( c) and
(e) ofR.A. No. 7160, as well as the privilege under Section 225 thereof.

Neither was there basis, according to the CTA, for NPC to claim that
respondents are estopped from questioning NPC's legal interest as
respondents already acknowledged the same in their MOA. The CTA found
that apart from the enumeration of the parties' respective obligations under
the MOA, there was nothing therein that says respondents acknowledged
NPC as the owner and user of the power plant and the equipment therein.

Further, the stipulated undertaking of NPC to pay the real property

taxes does not justify the exemption as it has already been previously ruled
by the Supreme Court that such undertaking is essentially wrong as to rule
otherwise would be tantamount to allowing an exempt entity to use its
privilege to favor a non-exempt entity and debase our tax system, citing this
Court's ruling in National Power Corporation v. Province of Quezon and
Municipality ofPagbilao. 24

Finding that NPC is not the actual owner nor the beneficial owner or
possessor of the subject machinery and equipment, the CTA came to the
22
Sec. 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. - The following are exempted from payment of the real
property tax:
xx xx
e) Machinery and equipment used for pollution control and environmental protection.
23
Rollo, pp. 194-195.
24
624 Phil. 738 (2010).

I
Decision 6 G.R. No. 210191

same conclusion as the LBAA and the CBAA, that NPC has no legal
personality to claim for exemptions and privileges under Sections 234( c) and
(e), as well as Section 225 25 ofR.A. No. 7160.

Thus, the CTA sustained the findings and conclusions of the LBAA
and the CBAA and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.

Hence, this petition.

Issue

The issues raised by NPC in this petition - whether the subject

machinery and equipment are exempted from real property tax under Section
234(c) or Section 234(e) ofR.A. 7160; whether the same can be considered
as a special class of real property under Section 216 of the same Act for a
lower assessment of real property tax; or whether NPC is entitled to the
depreciation allowance under Section 225 thereof - all boil down to the
pivotal issue of whether NPC has legal personality and interest to claim for
such exemptions and privileges.

Our Ruling

This case is definitely not of first impression. In NPC's previous

26
cases with this Court, i.e., FELS Energy, Inc. v. The Province of Batangas,
National Power Corporation v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals27 and
National Power Corporation v. Province of Quezon, 28 the implications of a
contract and/or a BOT agreement between a government-owned and
controlled corporation that enjoy tax exemption, and a private corporation
with regard to real property tax liabilities, have already been exhaustively
explained and discussed by this Court. Specifically, the Court has concluded
that the tax exemptions and privileges claimed by NPC cannot be recognized
since it is not the actual, direct, and exclusive user of the facilities,
machinery and equipment subject of the cases.

The Court emphasized therein its guiding principle in resolving the

said cases, i.e., taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception.

Guided by Our pronouncements in the said strikingly similar cases,

we find this petition bereft of merit.

NPC argues that the CTA erred in denying its claim for exemption on
the ground that it is not the owner of the subject facilities. NPC insists that,

25
Sec. 225. Depreciation Allowance for Machinery. - For purposes of assessment, a depreciation
allowance shall be made for machinery at a rate not exceeding five percent (5%) of its original cost or
its replacement or reproduction cost, as the case may be, for each year of use: Provided, however, That
the remaining value for all kinds of machinery shall be fixed at not less than twenty percent (20%) of
such original, replacement, or reproduction cost for so long as the machinery is useful and in operation.
26
545 Phil. 92 (2007).
27
597 Phil. 413 (2009).
28
Supra note 24.

\
Decision 7 G.R. No. 210191

as project owner, it has legal interest over the power plant and as such, it has
the legal personality to question the assessment and claim for exemption
therefor. NPC argues that legal interest over the properties subject of real
property tax is not limited to ownership considering that for such tax
purposes, real properties are classified, valued, and assessed on the basis of
their actual use, highlighting the phrase "regardless of where located,
whoever owns it, and whoever uses it" in Section 217 ofR.A. No. 7160.

Indeed, real property tax liability rests on the owner of the property or
on the person with the beneficial use thereof such as taxes on government
property leased to private persons or when tax assessment is made on the
basis of the actual use of the property. 29 In either case, the unpaid realty tax
attaches to the property but is directly chargeable against the taxable person
who has actual and beneficial use and possession of the property regardless
of whether or not that person is the owner. 30 NPC was, therefore, corre~t in
arguing that a beneficial user may also be legally burdened with the
obligation to pay for the tax imposed on a property and as such, has legal
interest therein and the personality to protest an assessment or claim
exemption from tax liability. 31

In this case, however, NPC is neither the owner nor the possessor or
beneficial user of the subject facilities. Hence, it cannot be considered to
have any legal interest in the subject property to clothe it with the
personality to question the assessment and claim for exemptions and
privileges.

Records clearly show that NPC is yet to be the owner of the subject
facilities. Provisions of the ECA unequivocally support this conclusion, viz.:

2.10 Ownership of Power Station. From the date hereof until

the Transfer Date, [Mirant] shall directly or indirectly, own the Power
Station and all the fixtures, fittings, machinery and equipment on the Site
and the Ash Disposal Sites or used in connection with the Power Station
which have been supplied by it or at its cost. [Mirant] shall operate and
maintain the Power Station for the purpose of converting Fuel of NPC into
electricity.

2.11 Transfer. On the Transfer Date, the Power Station shall be

transferred by [Mirant] to NPC without the payment of any compensation
and otherwise in accordance with the provisions of Article 8. 32

Further, as correctly observed by the LBAA, there is nothing in the

ECA which expressly grants the NPC the right or authority to use directly or
indirectly the power plant and the facilities therein during the cooperation
period. Article 5 of the ECA specifically provides that Mirant has the
responsibility to manage, operate, and maintain the power plant until the
Transfer Date. Such acts of management, operation, maintenance, and repair
29
National Power Corporation v. Province of Quezon, supra note 24.
30 Id.
31 Id.
32
Rollo, p. 240.

\
Decision 8 G.R. No. 210191

are inherent in and are necessary and incidental to Mirant's ownership and
actual use of the power plant and the facilities therein.

Clearly, as it is, during the subject taxable period, Mirant is still the
owner and actual user of the subject facilities.

NPC, however, insists on its ownership and beneficial use of the

power plant. NPC posits that Mirant was a mere service contractor that NPC
employed to construct and operate the power plant to implement NPC's
mandate to generate electricity. This assertion has already been squarely
addressed and confuted by this Court in the case of National Power
Corporation v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA), 33 which we
reiterate and adopt in this case, thus:

As in the fact of ownership, NAPOCOR's assertion is belied by the

documented arrangements between the contracting parties, viewed
particularly from the prism of the BOT law.

The underlying concept behind a BOT agreement is defined and

described in the BOT law as follows:

Build-operate-and-transfer. - A contractual arrange-

ment whereby the project proponent undertakes the
construction, including financing, of a given infrastructure
facility, and the operation and maintenance thereof. The
project proponent operates the facility over a fixed term
during which it is allowed to charge facility users
appropriate tolls, fees, rentals, and charges not exceeding
those proposed in its bid or as negotiated and incorporated
in the contract to enable the project proponent to recover its
investment, and operating and maintenance expenses in the
project. The project proponent transfers the facility to the
government agency or local government unit concerned at
the end of the fixed term which shall not exceed fifty (50)
years xx x.

Under this concept, it is the project proponent who constructs the

project at its own cost and subsequently operates and manages it. The
proponent secures the return on its investments from those using the
project facilities through appropriate tolls, fees, rentals, and charges not
exceeding those proposed in its bid or as negotiated. At the end of the
fixed term agreed upon, the project proponent transfers the ownership of
the facility to the government agency. Thus, the government is able to put
up projects and provide immediate services without the burden of the
a
heavy expenditures that project start up requires.

A reading of the provisions of the parties' BOT Agreement shows

that it fully conforms to this concept. By its express terms, BPPC has
complete ownership - both legal and beneficial of the project - including
the machineries and equipment used, subject only to the transfer of these
properties without cost to NAPOCOR after the lapse of the period agreed
upon. As agreed upon, BPPC provided the funds for the construction of
the power plant, including the machineries and equipment needed for
33
597 Phil. 413 (2009).

(
Decision 9 G.R. No. 210191

power generation; thereafter, it actually operated and still operates the

power plant, uses its machineries and equipment, and receives payment for
these activities and the electricity generated under a defined compensation
scheme. Notably, BPPC - as owner-user - is responsible for any defect in
the machineries and equipment. (Citation omitted)

xx xx

Consistent with the BOT concept and as implemented, BPPC - the

owner-manager-operator of the project - is the actual user of its
machineries and equipment. BPPC's ownership and use of the machineries
and equipment are actual, direct, and immediate, while NAPOCOR's is
contingent and, at this stage of the BOT Agreement, not sufficient to
support its claim for tax exemption. Thus, the CTA committed no
34
reversible error in denying NAPOCOR's claim for tax exemption.
(Citation omitted)

Similar to the above-cited case, the agreement between NPC and

Mirant is consistent with the BOT concept. Mirant undertakes to build and
operate a power plant, which undertaking expressly includes the
responsibility to supply the consumables and spare parts, and maintain the
power plant until the transfer thereof to NPC. To be sure, this arrangement
goes beyond a mere service contractor agreement. In a BOT arrangement,
the private entity constructs and buys the necessary assets to put up the
project and thereafter, operates and manages it during an agreed period that
would allow it to recover its basic costs and earn profits until the project's
transfer to the government or government-owned and controlled entity. In
other words, the private sector proponent goes into business for itself,
assuming risks and incurring costs for its account. 35 On the other hand,
service contracting is nothing more than an undertaking to perform a certain
task for which the contractor is paid after its completion.

Thus, until the transfer of the project to NPC, it does not have
anything to do with the use and operation of the power plant. The direct,
actual, exclusive, and beneficial owner and user of the power station,
machineries, and equipment certainly pertains to Mirant. NPC, therefore,
has no legal personality to question on the assessment or claim for
exemption and privileges with regard to the tax liability attached to the
subject properties.

That NPC assumed the tax liabilities in the agreement is of no

moment. Such undertaking does not justify the exemption or entitlement to
privileges. The privilege granted to NPC cannot be extended to Mirant. To
rule otherwise would be to allow the circumvention of our law on
exemptions and grant of privileges.

The provisions invoked by NPC for entitlement to exemption and

privilege are clear and unambiguous. To successfully claim exemption
under Section 234(c) of R.A. No. 7160, the claimant must prove that (a) the
34
Id. at 430-433.
35
Id. at 432-433.

I
Decision 10 G.R. No. 210191

machinery and equipment are actually, directly and exclusively used by local
water districts and government-owned and controlled corporations; and (b)
the local water districts and government-owned and controlled corporations
claiming exemption must be engaged in the supply and distribution of water
36
and/or the generation and transmission of electric power.

Likewise, to successfully claim for differential treatment or a lower

assessment level under Section 216, in relation to Section 218 of the same
Act, the claimant must prove that the subject lands, buildings, and other
improvements are (a) actually, directly, and exclusively used for hospitals,
cultural, or scientific purposes; or (b) owned and used by local water districts
and government-owned and controlled corporations rendering essential
public services in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and
transmission of electric power. 37

It is important to emphasize that the government-owned and

controlled corporation claiming exemption and entitlement to the privilege
must be the entity actually, directly, and exclusively using the real properties,
and the use must be devoted to the generation and transmission of electric
power. As can be gleaned from the above disquisition, NPC miserably
failed to satisfy said requirements. Although the subject machinery and
equipment are devoted to generation of electricity, the ownership, use,
operation, and maintenance thereof pertain to Mirant.

Neither will NPC find justification in its claim that it is NPC, not
Mirant, which utilizes the generated electricity for transmission or
distribution to the customers. The clear wordings of the above-cited
provisions state that it is the machinery and equipment which are exempted
from the payment of real property tax, not the water or electricity that such
facilities generate for distribution. 38

For the same reason that NPC has no legal personality to question the
assessment and claim for exemptions and privileges, there is likewise no
basis for NPC to claim and be granted the depreciation allowance under
Section 225 of R.A. No. 7160.

Similarly, having no such legal personality, NPC cannot claim the

exemption under Section 234(e) of the same Act. While it may be true that
ownership of the machinery and equipment used for pollution control and
environmental protection, is not relevant to the determination of entitlement
to exemption, NPC still has no basis to assert such privilege. The LBAA did
not err in ruling that it is Mirant, not NPC, which should claim for such tax
exemption, if at all. At any rate, a claim for exemption under Section 234( e)

36
National Power Corporation v. Province of Quezon, supra note 24, at 743.
37
National Power Corporation v. Central Board and Assessment Appeals (CBAA), supra note 27, at 434.
38
National Power Corporation v. Province of Quezon, supra note 24.

\
Decision 11 G.R. No. 210191

of R.A. No. 7160, should be supported by evidence that the property sought
to be exempt is actually, directly, and exclusively used for pollution control
and environmental protection during the period covered by the assessment. 39
Verily, the determination of the actual, direct, and exclusive use of the
properties subject of the claim for exemption requires the examination of
evidence and assessment of the probative value of such evidence, if any - a
factual determination therefore, which this Court cannot go into, not only
because such endeavor is not allowed under a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45, 40 but more importantly because of the lack of such
necessary evidence for this Court to be able to make an accurate, valid, and
judicious conclusion.

In all, the LBAA and the CBAA, as affirmed by the CTA, correctly
denied NPC's claim for exemptions and entitlement to privileges under R.A.
No. 7160.

In conclusion, we reiterate this Court's observation in NPC's previous

cases with this Court above-cited. It must be pointed out that protracted and
circuitous litigation has seriously resulted in the local governments'
deprivation of revenues. The power to tax is the most potent instrument to
raise the needed revenues to finance and support myriad activities of local
government units for the delivery of basic services essential to the promotion
of the general welfare and the enhancement of peace, progress, and
prosperity of the people. Thus, the right of local government units to collect
taxes due must always be upheld to avoid severe tax erosion. This
consideration is consistent with the State policy to guarantee the autonomy
of local governments and the objective of the Local Government Code that
they enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to empower them to
achieve their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them
effective partners in the attainment of national goals. 41

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The

Decision dated November 11, 2013 of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc in
CTAEB Case No. 937 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

/.l1 C~~S,
Vissociate Justice
JR.

39
Provincial Assessor of Marinduque v. Hon. Court ofAppeals, 605 Phil. 357, 371-372 (2009).
4
°
41
Carbonell v. Carbonell-Mendes, 762 Phil. 529 (2015).
FELS Energy, Inc. v. The Province of Batangas, supra note 26, at 114-115.
 Decision 12 G.R. No. 210191

WE CONCUR:

Senior Associate Justice

Chairperson

(On Wellness Leave)

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

~~
RAMON PAULL. HERNANDO
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

Senior Associate Justice

Chairperson, Second Division

r
Decision 13 G.R. No. 210191

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.