Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

THIRD DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NOS. 7670, 7818, 7869, 7954 & 8034. March 9, 2021.] PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. ("PAL") , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS , respondents . DECISION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO , J p : The Case The present case is a consolidation of five (5) Petitions for Review filed pursuant to Section 3 (a) (2), Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals ("RRCTA") , 1 by PAL, praying for the refund of excise taxes in the aggregate amount of P1,174,628,066.60. The said taxes were allegedly paid by petitioner on its importation of Jet A-1 aviation fuel (hereinafter referred to as "Jet A-1 fuel") used in its domestic operations for the period covering July 2005 to May 2008. Petitioner's claims are broken down, as follows: Court of Tax Appeals ("CTA") Case No. Date of Importation Jet A-1 fuel imported (in liters) Amount of Specific Tax Involved 7670 13 July 2005 14,462,228 P53,076,377.00 23 November 2005 6,756,728 24,775,172.00 23 November 2005 7,726,974 28,357,995.00 17 February 2006 14,458,513 53,062,743.00 23 March 2006 17,670,808 64,851,866.00 28 April 2006 11,671,634 42,834,897.00 7818 3 July 2006 2,858,897 10,492,152.00 1 July 2006 14,893,964 54,660,848.00 7 July 2006 15,949,658 58,535,245.00 18 August 2006 12,956,199 47,549,251.00 2 September 2006 10,174,152 37,339,138.00 10 November 2006 8,682,097 31,863,296.00 7869 18 January 2007 12,501,601 45,880,876.00 12 February 2007 11,289,048 6,466,405.00 12 February 2007 34,964,402.00 16 February 2007 15,976,343 58,633,179.00 14 March 2007 11,333,919 41,595,483.00 10 April 2007 11,088,776 40,557,820.00 10 April 2007 137,988.00 7954 14 July 2007 14,437,647 52,986,165.00 5 August 2007 16,146,856 59,258,962.00 18 August 2007 11,277,038 41,386,730.00 5 October 2007 14,479,671 53,140,393.00 13 December 2007 8,018,938 29,429,503.00 8034 5 February 2008 16,032,680 58,839,935.60 24 February 2008 10,775,934 39,547,678.00 8 March 2008 13,057,664 47,740,472.00 8 March 2008 181,155.00 24 April 2008 5,646,927 20,724,223.00 30 May 2008 9,743,247 35,757,717.00 TOTAL 320,062,141 P1,174,628,066.60 The Parties Petitioner PAL is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing in accordance with the laws of the Republic of the Philippines with principal office at the 8th Floor, PNB Financial Center, Pres. Diosdado Macapagal Ave., CCP Complex, Pasay City. HSAcaE Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR") is the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue ("BIR"), which is the government agency in charge of the assessment and collection of all national internal revenue taxes, fees, and charges, including the excise tax on aviation turbo fuel imposed under Section 148 (g) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended ("Tax Code") . He holds office at the BIR National Office Building, Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City. Respondent Commissioner of Customs ("COC") is the head of the Bureau of Customs ("BOC") delegated and authorized by respondent CIR, through an Authority to Release Imported Goods ("ATRIG")/BIR Form No. 1918, to assess and collect custom duties and all other charges on imported articles, including the excise tax on aviation turbo fuel imposed under Section 148 (g) of the Tax Code . He holds office at the Port Area, Bureau of Customs, Manila. The Facts On 11 June 1978, petitioner was granted a franchise to establish, operate, and maintain air-transport services in the Philippines and between the Philippines and other countries, known as Presidential Decree ("PD") No. 1590 . 2 Pursuant to Section 13 (b) (2 ) of the said franchise, petitioner has the benefit of paying the lower amount between its basic corporate income tax or franchise tax equivalent to two percent (2%) of its gross revenues. The payment of the same shall be in lieu of all other taxes, duties, and fees that may be imposed upon it by the State. The aforementioned provision is reproduced below, as follows: "Section 13. In consideration of the franchise and rights hereby granted, the grantee shall pay to the Philippine Government during the life of this franchise whichever of subsections (a) and (b) hereunder will result in a lower tax: (a) The basic corporate income tax based on the grantee's annual net taxable income computed in accordance with the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code; or (b) A franchise tax of two per cent (2%) of the gross revenues derived by the grantees from all sources, without distinction as to transport or nontransport corporations; provided, that with respect to international air-transport service, only the gross passengers, mail, and freight revenues from its outgoing flights shall be subject to this tax. The tax paid by the grantee under either of the above alternatives shall be in lieu of all other taxes, duties, royalties, registration, license, and other fees and charges of any kind, nature, or description, imposed, levied, established, assessed, or collected by any municipal, city, provincial, or national authority or government agency, now or in the future, including but not limited to the following: xxx xxx xxx (2) All taxes, including compensating taxes, duties, charges, royalties, or fees due on all importations by the grantee of aircraft, engines, equipment, machinery, spare parts, accessories, commissary and catering supplies, aviation gas, fuel, and oil , whether refined or in crude form and other articles, supplies, or materials; provided, that such articles or supplies or materials are imported for the use of the grantee in its transport and non-transport operations and other activities incidental thereto and are not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality, or price; " 3 Subsequently, Letter of Instruction No. 1483 ("LOI No. 1483") was issued on 31 October 1985. The said issuance withdrew the tax-exemption privilege granted to PAL on its purchases of domestic petroleum products for its use in its domestic operations effective 1 November 1985. 4 On 29 January 1999, however, BIR Ruling No. 013-99 ("1999 BIR Ruling") was issued, clarifying that the petroleum products imported or purchased by PAL abroad for use in its domestic operations will remain free from excise tax, 5 to wit: "x x x we confirm your opinion that petroleum products purchased or imported by PAL from abroad can be used by it in its domestic operations without payment of tax since the said products were not a domestic purchase. The intention of LOI No. 1483 is to impose a tax on domestic petroleum products purchased by PAL for use in its domestic operations ." 6 HESIcT The 1999 BIR Ruling was later on confirmed by then Secretary of Finance, Edgardo B. Espiritu, in his Letter, dated 8 September 1999, addressed to petitioner's Mr. Andrew L. Huang. 7 The letter reads: "I confirm BIR Ruling No. 043-99 , dated January 29, 1999, which confirms PAL's exemption from specific and ad valorem taxes, on its importation of the foregoing petroleum products, whether for domestic or international flights ." 8 Meanwhile, on 20 December 2002, the Department of Energy ("DOE") issued a Certification ("2002 DOE Certification") stating that aviation gas, fuel, and oil for use in the domestic operations of domestic airline companies are locally available in reasonable quantity, quality, and price. 9 On account of the said 2002 DOE Certification , then CIR Guillermo L. Parayno, Jr., issued BIR Ruling No. 001-03 ("2003 BIR Ruling") on 29 January 2003. The said ruling provided that the importation of petroleum products made by PAL, along with the other airline companies, would no longer be exempted from taxes imposed under the Tax Code , considering that aviation gas, fuel, and oil were then already locally available in reasonable quantity, quality, and price. 10 The relevant portion of the 2003 BIR Ruling reads as follows: " In the light of the Certification of the Department of Energy dated December 20, 2002 that aviation gas, fuel and oil for use in domestic operation of domestic airline companies are locally available in reasonable quantity, quality and price, it is the considered opinion of this Office that there is now an absence of the second condition required for the airlines to continue to enjoy tax exemption on their importations of petroleum products for domestic operations as stated in Section 13 of PAL's Charter (PD 1590, as amended by LOI 1483) and which condition applies ipso facto to other airlines. Accordingly, your importations may not be given the same treatment as before for as long as there is such available domestic supply of petroleum products . This Ruling, therefore, supersedes the above-stated rulings and all such other ruling that may be contrary to the intent of this Ruling, and constitutes the final decision of this Office on the matter." 11 Aggrieved, petitioner, on 24 October 2003, filed a letter addressed to then DOE Secretary, Vicente Perez, asking for reconsideration of the 2002 DOE Certification . 12 It had also earlier filed, on 19 March 2003, a letter to then Commissioner Guillermo Parayno, Jr., requesting the reconsideration of the 2003 BIR Ruling . 13 Thereafter, Secretary Perez, in his letter, dated 2 April 2004, said that, per its records for years 2002 and 2003, it confirms that the Jet A-1 fuel are locally available in quantity. As for the reasonableness of the price, it endorsed petitioner's letter to the Department of Finance ("DOF") for appropriate action. 14 As for the BIR Ruling 2003 , petitioner had not yet received any decision from the CIR as of date. On 24 May 2005, Republic Act ("RA") No. 9337 15 was passed which effectively abolished the franchise tax under petitioner's charter and subjected it to corporate income tax and value-added tax ("VAT"). Nevertheless, the law retained petitioner's exemption from taxes, duties, royalties, registration, license, and other fees and charges, provided under its franchise. The pertinent portion of the said law is Section 22 of RA No. 9337 which is hereby quoted, to wit: caITAC "SECTION 22. Franchises of Domestic Airlines. The provisions of P.D. No. 1590 on the franchise tax of Philippine Airlines, Inc. , R.A. No. 7151 on the franchise tax of Cebu Air, Inc., R.A. No. 7583 on the franchise tax of Aboitiz Air Transport Corporation, R.A. No. 7909 on the franchise tax of Pacific Airways Corporation, R.A. No. 8339 on the franchise tax of Air Philippines, or any other franchise agreement or law pertaining to a domestic airline to the contrary notwithstanding: (A) The franchise tax is abolished ; (B) The franchisee shall be liable to the corporate income tax ; (C) The franchisee shall register for value-added tax under Section 236, and to account under Title IV of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, for value-added tax on its sale of goods, property or services and its lease of property ; and (D) The franchisee shall otherwise remain exempt from any taxes, duties, royalties, registration, license, and other fees and charges, as may be provided by their respective franchise agreement ." 16 Subsequently on separate dates (as indicated below), petitioner imported Jet A-1 fuel allegedly for its use in its domestic operations. On the basis of the 2003 BIR Ruling , the CIR through the COC assessed petitioner for excise taxes on the said importations. In order to effect the release of the imported Jet A-1 fuel, petitioner paid under protest the excise taxes on the said products in the aggregate amount of P1,174,628,066.60. The details of petitioner's payments are as follows: CTA Case No. Date of Importation Date of Payment under Protest Amount Paid 7670 13 July 2005 17 11 August 2005 18 P53,076,377.00 23 November 2005 19 22 December 2005 20 24,775,172.00 23 November 2005 21 22 December 2005 22 28,357,995.00 17 February 2006 23 8 March 2006 24 53,062,743.00 23 March 2006 25 18 April 2006 26 64,851,866.00 28 April 2006 27 6 June 2006 28 42,834,897.00 7818 3 July 2006 29 3 August 2006 30 10,492,152.00 1 July 2006 31 3 August 2006 32 54,660,848.00 7 July 2006 33 9 August 2006 34 58,535,245.00 18 August 2006 35 11 October 2006 36 47,549,251.00 2 September 2006 37 6 October 2006 38 31,339,138.00 10 November 2006 39 14 December 2006 40 31,863,296.00 7869 18 January 2007 41 7 February 2007 42 45,880,876.00 12 February 2007 43 16 March 2007 44 6,466,405.00 12 February 2007 45 27 March 2007 46 34,964,402.00 16 February 2007 47 22 March 2007 48 58,633,179.00 14 March 2007 49 12 April 2007 50 41,595,483.00 10 April 2007 51 10 May 2007 52 40,557,820.00 10 April 2007 53 5 June 2007 54 137,988.00 7954 14 July 2007 55 30 July 2007 56 52,986,165.00 5 August 2007 57 14 September 2007 58 59,258,962.00 18 August 2007 59 12 September 2007 60 41,386,730.00 5 October 2007 61 7 November 2007 62 53,140,393.00 13 December 2007 63 9 January 2008 64 29,429,503.00 8034 5 February 2008 65 5 March 2008 66 58,839,935.60 24 February 2008 67 26 March 2008 68 39,547,678.00 8 March 2008 69 10 April 2008 70 47,740,472.00 8 March 2008 71 17 April 2008 72 181,155.00 24 April 2008 73 15 May 2008 74 20,724,223.00 30 May 2008 75 18 June 2008 76 35,757,717.00 Thereafter, petitioner filed its formal written protests with the BOC, asking for refund of the excise taxes paid, on the following dates: ICHDca CTA Case No. Date of Importation Date of Payment under Protest Date of Filing of Protest with COC 7670 13 July 2005 11 August 2005 24 August 2005 77 23 November 2005 22 December 2005 6 January 2006 78 23 November 2005 22 December 2005 6 January 2006 79 17 February 2006 8 March 2006 21 March 2006 80 23 March 2006 18 April 2006 2 May 2006 81 28 April 2006 6 June 2006 20 June 2006 82 7818 3 July 2006 3 August 2006 16 August 2006 83 1 July 2006 3 August 2006 16 August 2006 84 7 July 2006 9 August 2006 23 August 2006 85 18 August 2006 11 October 2006 23 October 2006 86 2 September 2006 6 October 2006 19 October 2006 87 10 November 2006 14 December 2006 27 December 2006 88 7869 18 January 2007 7 February 2007 21 February 2007 89 12 February 2007 16 March 2007 30 March 2007 90 12 February 2007 27 March 2007 16 February 2007 22 March 2007 3 April 2007 91 14 March 2007 12 April 2007 24 April 2007 92 10 April 2007 10 May 2007 22 May 2007 93 10 April 2007 5 June 2007 19 June 2007 94 7954 14 July 2007 30 July 2007 14 August 2007 95 5 August 2007 14 September 2007 26 September 2007 96 18 August 2007 12 September 2007 25 September 2007 97 5 October 2007 7 November 2007 20 November 2007 98 13 December 2007 9 January 2008 23 January 2008 99 8034 5 February 2008 5 March 2008 18 March 2008 100 24 February 2008 26 March 2008 9 April 2008 101 8 March 2008 10 April 2008 23 April 2008 102 8 March 2008 17 April 2008 24 April 2008 15 May 2008 29 May 2008 103 30 May 2008 18 June 2008 2 July 2008 104 Due to respondent COC's inaction, and in order to toll the running of the two-year prescriptive period provided under Section 204 (C) of the Tax Code , petitioner filed its written claims for refund with respondent CIR for the aforementioned excise taxes paid, on the following dates: CTA Case No. Date of Payment under Protest Date of Written Claim for Refund to CIR Amount Claimed 7670 11 August 2005 9 July 2007 105 P53,076,377.00 22 December 2005 24,775,172.00 22 December 2005 28,357,995.00 8 March 2006 53,062,743.00 18 April 2006 64,851,866.00 6 June 2006 42,834,897.00 7818 3 August 2006 1 July 2008 106 10,492,152.00 3 August 2006 54,660,848.00 9 August 2006 58,535,245.00 11 October 2006 47,549,251.00 6 October 2006 37,339,138.00 14 December 2006 31,863,296.00 7869 7 February 2007 16 January 2008 107 45,880,876.00 16 March 2007 6,466,405.00 27 March 2007 34,964,402.00 22 March 2007 58,633,179.00 12 April 2007 41,595,483.00 10 May 2007 40,557,820.00 5 June 2007 137,988.00 7954 30 July 2007 17 April 2009 108 52,986,165.00 14 September 2007 59,258,962.00 12 September 2007 41,386,730.00 7 November 2007 53,140,393.00 9 January 2008 29,429,503.00 8034 5 March 2008 18 November 2009 109 58,839,935.60 26 March 2008 39,547,678.00 10 April 2008 47,740,472.00 17 April 2008 181,155.00 15 May 2008 20,724,223.00 18 June 2008 35,757,717.00 Alleging inaction on the part of the CIR, petitioner filed the instant Petitions for Review on the following dates: TCAScE CTA Case No. Date of Payment under Protest Date of Written Claim for Refund to CIR Date of Filing of the Petition for Review 7670 11 August 2005 9 July 2007 10 August 2007 110 22 December 2005 22 December 2005 8 March 2006 18 April 2006 6 June 2006 7818 3 August 2006 1 July 2008 4 August 2008 111 3 August 2006 9 August 2006 11 October 2006 6 October 2006 14 December 2006 7869 7 February 2007 16 January 2008 9 February 2009 112 16 March 2007 27 March 2007 22 March 2007 12 April 2007 10 May 2007 5 June 2007 7654 30 July 2007 17 April 2009 30 July 2009 113 14 September 2007 12 September 2007 7 November 2007 9 January 2008 8034 5 March 2008 18 November 2009 5 March 2010 114 26 March 2008 10 April 2008 17 April 2008 15 May 2008 18 June 2008 Proceedings in CTA Case No. 7670 Respondent CIR filed his Answer on 18 September 2007 115 and his Amended Answer on 20 September 2007. 116 Meanwhile, respondent COC filed his Answer on 6 November 2007. 117 Thereafter, he filed an Addendum to Respondent Commissioner of Customs' Answer dated October 31, 2007 on 19 November 2007. 118 Subsequently, respondents CIR and COC filed their respective Pre-Trial Briefs on 7 January 2008 119 and 11 January 2008. 120 Petitioner filed its Pre-Trial Brief on 11 February 2008. 121 Pre-trial ensued on 27 March 2008, which was only attended by petitioner's counsel. Considering the same, the Court ordered respondents in default and allowed petitioner to present evidence ex parte . 122 ASEcHI This prompted the COC to file his Motion to Lift Resolution of Default dated March 27, 2008. He explained that his counsel was not present during the pre-trial conference because the same had to attend a hearing for another case. On this basis, he pleaded for the Court to lift its order of default. 123 Meanwhile, the CIR filed his Manifestation and Motion praying for the same relief as the COC. He explained that his counsel lost her planner/calendar and was unable to get a copy of the court calendar from this Court's Clerk of Court. 124 In the interest of substantial justice and considering petitioner did not interpose any objection, the Court granted both Motions on 5 July 2008. 125 Thereafter, pre-trial ensued on 3 July 2008. 126 The parties filed their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues ("JSFI") on 4 September 2008. 127 The Court then issued a Resolution on 9 September 2008, approving the JSFI and ordering the termination of Pre-trial. 128 Proceedings in CTA Case No. 7818 For this case, respondents CIR and COC filed their Answers on 9 September 2008 129 and 20 October 2008, 130 respectively. Subsequently, respondents CIR and COC filed their Pre-Trial Briefs on 17 September 2008 131 and 13 November 2008. 132 Petitioner filed its Pre-Trial Brief on 5 November 2008. 133 Pre-trial commenced on 4 December 2008. 134 Thereafter, the parties filed their JSFI on 10 February 2009. 135 On 12 February 2009, the Court issued a Resolution approving the JSFI and ordering the termination of Pre-trial. 136 Proceedings in CTA Case No. 7869 Respondent CIR filed his Answer on 4 March 2009, 137 and the COC filed his on 17 April 2009. 138 On 30 March 2009, the CIR filed his Pre-Trial Brief 139 while the COC filed the same on 17 April 2009. 140 Pre-trial ensued on 23 April 2009, which was only attended by respondents' counsels. Considering the same, the Court ordered the dismissal of CTA Case No. 7869. 141 On 7 May 2009, petitioner filed its Motion to Admit Pre-Trial Brief and Set Case for Pre-Trial. It alleged that due to heavy work load, its counsel was not able to file its Pre-Trial Brief on time. Hence, it prayed for the Court to admit the said pleading. 142 Having received the Court's order dismissing CTA Case No. 7869, petitioner filed its Omnibus Motion (a) For Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 7 May 2009; (b) To Admit Pre-Trial Brief and Set Case for Pre-Trial Conference. 143 On 18 August 2009, the Court issued a Resolution granting petitioner's Motions, admitting petitioner's Pre-Trial Brief, and ordering the recall and setting aside of its earlier order of dismissal. 144 Pre-trial proceeded on 10 September 2009, 145 followed by the filing of the parties' JSFI on 20 November 2009. 146 On 25 November 2009, the Court issued a Resolution approving the JSFI and terminating pre-trial for said case. 147 ITAaHc Proceedings in CTA Case No. 7954 Respondent COC filed his Answer on 25 August 2009, 148 while the CIR filed his on 22 September 2009. 149 The parties' respective Pre-Trial Briefs were filed on 5 October 2009 for petitioner 150 and on 6 October 2009 for the COC 151 and the CIR. 152 Pre-Trial commenced on 9 October 2009. 153 Afterwards, the JSFI was filed by the parties on 22 December 2009. 154 The Court approved the JSFI and ordered the termination of the pre-trial through a Resolution dated 5 January 2010. 155 Proceedings in CTA Case No. 8034 Respondent COC filed his Answer on 25 March 2010. 156 Meanwhile, the CIR filed a Motion to Admit Attached Answer on 4 June 2010, 157 which was granted in open court on 10 June 2010. 158 On 28 May 2010, petitioner filed a Motion to Clarify Answer 159 addressed to the COC. The COC responded by filing a Manifestation and Motion on 17 June 2010, asking the Court to admit its Amended Answer. 160 The Court admitted the said pleading through its Resolution dated 18 June 2010. 161 Thereafter, the COC and the CIR filed their respective Pre-Trial Briefs on 8 June 2010 162 and 19 July 2010. 163 Petitioner filed its Pre-Trial Brief on 19 July 2010. 164 In separate Motions filed by both the COC and petitioner, the parties moved for the consolidation of the above-captioned cases. 165 The Court granted the same through a Resolution dated 5 August 2010. 166 On 14 January 2011, petitioner filed its Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum , asking the Court to issue a subpoena to respondent COC to furnish the Court the Import Entry & Internal Revenue Declarations ("IEIRD") of all local oil companies for the period August 2005 to June 2008 and IEIRDs of other airline companies for the same period. 167 The Court denied the said request on the ground that the description of the documents was not definite. 168 This prompted petitioner to file its Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum anew asking for the specific IEIRDs of all local oil companies ( e.g. , Phoenix Petroleum, Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp., Caltex/Chevron, and Petron) and airlines ( e.g. , Cebu Pacific Air and Air Philippines Corp.) for the period August 2005 to June 2008. 169 Acting on the said request, the Court directed petitioner's counsel to secure instead certified true copies of the said documents since the same are public in nature. 170 On 21 January 2011, the parties filed their JSFI for CTA Case No. 8034. 171 On 18 February 2011, the Court issued the Pre-Trial Order which marked the end of Pre-Trial for CTA Case No. 8034. 172 Thereafter, on separate dates, petitioner filed several requests for the issuance of Subpoena Ad Testificandum addressed to the following: 1. Ms. Glendalyn P. Dela Cruz ("Ms. Dela Cruz"), Senior Science Research Specialist, Oil Industry Competition and Monitoring Division of the DOE. 173 2. Atty. Eleazar C. Cesista, Director III of the Revenue Operations Group of the DOF. Petitioner intends to let Atty. Cesista identify certain documents and testify on matters regarding the issuance of the 1st indorsement by the DOF; and the latter's reliance on the certifications issued by the Air Transportation Office ("ATO") or Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines ("CAAP"), among others. 174 The Court granted petitioner's request and issued a subpoena to Ms. Dela Cruz on 11 March 2011. 175 Meanwhile, during Trial, petitioner presented the following witnesses: 1. Mr. Elvis A. Yao ("Mr. Yao"), Senior Assistant Vice President-Fuel Management Department of petitioner. 176 Mr. Yao's testimony focused on proving that (a) petitioner imported Jet A-1 fuel during the relevant periods in question; (b) petitioner paid excise taxes due on the said importation; (c) petitioner filed Protest Letters to BOC and BIR; (d) the 2002 DOE Certification was issued in violation of its rights to due process; (d) the 2003 BIR Ruling is invalid; (e) the Jet-1 fuel is not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality, or price; (f) the CIR is a proper party-in-interest in this case; (g) petitioner was able to submit all the required documents in support of its administrative claim for refund; (h) it is entitled to the relief prayed for; (i) the 2003 BIR Ruling does not apply to year 2003 and subsequent years; and (j) subsequent government certifications show that there is no locally available Jet A-1 fuel in reasonable quantity, quality, and price. He also identified documents relevant to petitioner's importation of the Jet A-1 fuel. 2. Ms. Evelyn L. Taghap ("Ms. Taghap"), Manager-Tax Services and Compliance Division of petitioner. 177 Ms. Taghap testified that petitioner paid both income tax and VAT for the years 2005-2008. She also confirmed that petitioner is a VAT registered taxpayer. 3. Ms. Dela Cruz Senior Science Research Specialist, Oil Industry Competition and Monitoring Division of the DOE. 178 Ms. Dela Cruz expounded on the DOE Report she prepared showing the volume or quantity of importation, exportation, and local refinery production of various petroleum products, including the Jet A-1 fuel, and the demand for each product for the year 2001-2010. cHDAIS 4. Ms. Myra Celeste O. Dabalos ("Ms. Dabalos") Independent Certified Public Accountant appointed by the Court on 19 March 2012. 179 Ms. Dabalos discussed her findings in relation to the propriety of the amount of refund being claimed by petitioner. She also reported that it is cheaper for petitioner to import Jet A-1 Fuel than to purchase it locally from Petron and Shell. 5. Mr. Mario V. Tiaoqui ("Mr. Tiaoqui") former Secretary of the DOE who was presented as an expert witness. 180 Mr. Tiaoqui testified that local supply and local domestic refinery production had been considered by the DOE and by oil companies as one and the same and that importation or any imported product was different from locally available supply or one that had been processed and produced in the country by local refineries. He opined that the phrase "not locally available" under Section 13 of PD No. 1590 would mean that which was not refined or processed in the Philippines. 6. Mr. Roberto R. Razal ("Mr. Razal") Supervising Fuel Technical Specialist-Fuel Management Department of petitioner. 181 Mr. Razal testified on the fact that petitioner's imported Jet A-1 fuel was solely used in its domestic operations. He also identified documents in relation to PAL's consumption of said fuel. 7. Atty. Arminda Acyatan-Guerrero ("Atty. Acyatan-Guerrero") ICPA appointed by the Court on 15 August 2016. 182 Atty. Acyatan-Guerrero testified on the verification procedures she performed in determining whether petitioner indeed consumed the relevant Jet A-1 fuel in this case. Based on her audit, she was able to verify that (a) there was indeed an importation of Jet A-1 fuel made by petitioner; (b) petitioner maintains records of its imported Jet A-1 fuel on the basis of "first-in, first out" ("FIFO") method; and (c) petitioner was able to fully consume the imported Jet A-1 fuel in this case in the aggregate total of 320,062,141 liters. On 1 April 2013, the Court issued a Resolution ordering respondents to elevate their respective case records pertinent to the instant Petitions. 183 Respondent CIR manifested that he has no case records to elevate, claiming that the issues herein involves the collections of the BOC. 184 Meanwhile, respondent BOC transmitted his records on 11 June 2013 and 8 April 2015. 185 On 3 April 2014, petitioner filed its Manifestation and Request for Admission. Petitioner explained that it instituted a separate action in the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City-Branch 114 ("RTC"), assailing the validity of the 2002 DOE Certification 186 and that on 27 February 2014, the RTC rendered a Decision declaring the same null and void. The RTC found that the DOE has no legal authority to issue such certification since it is the CAAP or the ATO or its predecessor agencies which are legally authorized to issue the same. 187 On the basis of the foregoing, petitioner requested the Court to admit the RTC Decision. 188 The Court granted petitioner's Manifestation and Request for Admission through a Resolution dated 23 June 2014. 189 Thereafter, petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence ("FOE") on 13 March 2015. 190 On 24 August 2015, the Court issued a Resolution admitting petitioner's offered exhibits except for the following: ISHCcT a) Exhibits "JJ", "DDDDD-4", "C 6 -4", "H 6 -2", "J 6 -4", "S 10 ", "T 10 ", "U 10 ", "V 10 ", "W 10 ", "X 10 ", "Y 10 ", "Z 10 ", "A 11 ", "B 11 ", "C 11 ", "I 13 ", "J 13 ", "K 13 ", "L 13 ", "M 13 ", "N 13 ", "O 13 ", "P 13 ", "Q 13 ", "R 13 ", "S 13 ", "T 13 ", "U 13 ", "V 13 ", "W 13 ", "X 13 ", "Y 13 ", "Z 13 ", "A 14 ", "B 14 ", "C 14 ", "D 14 ", "E 14 ", "F 14 ", "G 14 ", "H 14 ", "I 14 ", "J 14 ", and "C 15 ", for failure to identify the exhibits; b) Exhibits "M", "M-1", "M-2", "M-3", "M-4", "M-5", "M-6", "M-7", "M-8", "I 6 ", "H 8 ", "I 8 ", "J 8 ", "K 8 ", and "W 8 -5", for failure to correspond with the description in the FOE; c) Exhibits "FFFFF" and "HHHHH", for failure to correspond with the description in the FOE and for failure to identify the said exhibits; d) Exhibit "B 9 -3", for failure to present the original document for comparison; e) Exhibits "J", "R", "U-1", "W", "X", "DD", "FF-1", "FF-1-a", "II", "II-1", "EEE-1", "EEE-2", "JJJ", "GGGGG-4", "GGGGG-5", "MMMMM-1", "MMMMM-2", "MMMMM-3", "MMMMM-4", "MMMMM-5", "NNNNN", "PPPPP", "QQQQQ", "H 6 -3", "J 6 ", "J 6 -2", "J 6 -5", "K 6 -1", "K 6 -c", "K 6 -d", "K 6 -i", "K 6 -2", "W 8 ", "W 8 -2", "W 8 -3", "W 8 -4", "W 8 -6", "X 8 ", for not being found in the records of the case; and f) Exhibits "HH", "HH-1", "HH-2", "HH-3", "II-2", "EEE-3", "JJJJJ", "LLLLL", "I 6 -6", "J 6 -3", "B 8 ", "W 8 -1", "W 8 -7", and "C 9 ", for not being found in the records of the case and for petitioner's failure to identify the said exhibits. 191 Aggrieved, petitioner filed its Omnibus Motion (A) For Partial Reconsideration of the Court's Resolution dated 24 August 2015 and (B) For Reopening of Trial for the Recall of Witness and Presentation of Additional Evidence on 14 September 2015. 192 The Court, through a Resolution dated 5 February 2016, granted petitioner's request to reopen trial and to recall its witness. However, the Court deferred its resolution on petitioner's Motion asking reconsideration to admit its denied exhibits. 193 Thereafter, petitioner filed its Supplemental FOE on 20 October 2016. 194 On 21 March 2017, the Court issued a Resolution admitting all the pieces of evidence offered by petitioner in its Supplemental FOE except for Exhibits "D 16 -0227", "D 16 -0329", "D 16 -0997", "D 16 -1080", "D 16 -1174" to "D 16 -1177", "D 16 -1268", "D 16 -1364", "F 16 -0510" to "F 16 -0535", "F 16 -0669" to "F 16 -0677", "H 16 -0192" to "H 16 -0194", "I 16 -0096", "J 16 -0290", "K 16 -0515", "M 16 -0099", "M 16 -0118", "M 16 -0158", "M 16 -0537", "O 16 -0155", "Q 16 -0049", "Q 16 -0162" to "Q 16 -0163", "Q 16 -0434", "Q 16 -0484", "Q 16 -0690", "Q 16 -0781", "Q 16 -0828", "Q 16 -1179", "Q 16 -1224" to "Q 16 -1225", "Q 16 -1291", "Q 16 -1315", "Q 16 -1358", "Q 16 -1403", "Q 16 -1492", "S 16 -0222" to "S 16 -0223", "S 16 -0269", "S 16 -0841", "S 16 -0884", "S 16 -0969", "S 16 -1060", "S 16 -1279", "S 16 -1296", "S 16 -1393", "T 16 -0372", "U 16 -0180", "W 16 -0561", "A 17 -0256", "B 17 -0641", "B 17 -1299", "B 17 -1445", "C 17 -0161", "D 17 -0628", "D 17 -0671", "D 17 -0679", "D 17 -0683", "E 17 -0002", "E 17 -0196", "E 17 -1341", "G 17 -1502", "H 17 -1354" to "H 17 -1362", "I 17 -0479", "I 17 -0491" to "I 17 -0492", "J 17 -0080", "J 17 -0410", "J 17 -0469", "J 17 -1298" to "J 17 -1299", "J 17 -1411" to "J 17 -1421", "J 17 -1465" to "J 17 -1513", and "K 17 -0127". 195 On 19 April 2017, petitioner filed its Omnibus Motion (A) For Partial Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 21 March 2017; and (B) For Recall of Witness and Identification of Exhibits. In the said Omnibus Motion it prayed for (a) the admission of its Exhibits "S 16 -1393", "W 16 -0561", "B 17 -0641", "C 17 -0161", "D 17 -0628", and "E 17 -0196"; (b) to allow Atty. Acyatan-Guerrero to submit the documentary exhibits not found in the case records; and (c) to recall as witness the said ICPA for purposes of identifying the said exhibits. 196 CAacTH On 19 April 2018, the Court directed the ICPA to submit the aforementioned documentary exhibits but deemed it proper not to call her again to testify since the exhibits had already been previously identified. 197 Petitioner filed the missing documentary exhibits on 15 May 2018. 198 In light of the additional documents submitted by petitioner, it filed its Manifestation and Motion to Admit Attached 2nd Supplemental Formal Offer of Evidence on 17 September 2018. 199 On 7 March 2019, the Court issued a Resolution admitting the 2nd Supplemental FOE. It also resolved petitioner's Motions for Reconsideration on the Court's Resolutions dated 24 August 2015 and 21 March 2017 reconsidering the admission of petitioner's exhibits except for the following: a) Exhibits "QQQQQ", "K 6 -2", "S 16 -1393", "W 16 -0561", "B 17 -0641", "C 17 -0161", "D 17 -0628" and "E 17 -0196", for not being found in the records of the case; b) Exhibits "GGGGG-4", "GGGGG-5", and "B 9 -3", for failure to present originals for comparison; c) Exhibits "JJJJJ" and "LLLLL", for failure to present originals for comparison and for petitioner's failure to identify the said exhibits; and d) Exhibits "A 14 ", "B 14 ", "C 14 ", "D 14 ", "E 14 ", "F 14 ", "G 14 ", "H 14 ", "I 14 ", and "J 14 ", for petitioner's failure to identify the said exhibits. In the same Resolution, the Court set the initial presentation of respondent's witnesses, marking the close of petitioner's presentation of evidence. 200 In response, respondents manifested that they will not present any evidence or witness in the instant cases. 201 Hence, the Court ordered the parties to submit their respective Memoranda. 202 Respondents' CIR and COC filed their respective Memoranda on 8 October 2019 203 and 20 September 2020. 204 Petitioner filed its Memorandum on 7 November 2019. 205 Thereafter, the Court issued a Resolution on 7 February 2020, submitting the consolidated cases for decision. Hence, this Decision. 206 The Issues 207 The parties submitted the following issues for this Court's resolution: WHETHER THE COURT IN DIVISION HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CONSOLIDATED PETITIONS; WHETHER RESPONDENT CIR IS A PROPER PARTY IN THE INSTANT CASE; WHETHER THE 2003 BIR RULING WAS VALIDLY ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW; AND WHETHER PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO A REFUND OF OR ISSUANCE OF TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE IN THE AMOUNT OF P1,174,628,066.60 ALLEGEDLY REPRESENTING EXCISE TAX IT PAID ON ITS IMPORTATIONS OF JET A-1 FUEL. Arguments of the Parties Petitioner's Arguments 208 Petitioner alleges that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present claims. It insists that it was forced to file the present Petitions to toll the expiration of the two-year prescriptive period since the same were not acted upon by respondents. Petitioner explains that the instant Petitions are not a mere disguise to ask the Court to issue a ruling on the validity of the 2002 DOE Certification which is the basis of the 2003 BIR Ruling . It cites that it had already filed a case in the RTC questioning the propriety of the 2002 DOE Certification which, in turn, had already declared the said issuance null and void. IAETDc As for the 2003 BIR Ruling , it argues that this Court has jurisdiction to rule on its legitimacy, most especially since a determinative ruling on the same is incidental to the resolution of its claim for refund. It argues that the contested ruling is void for being patently wrong and for being bereft of factual basis. It explains that, contrary to the assertions of the BIR, there are no available Jet A-1 fuel in reasonable quantity, quality, or price in the Philippines during the time of its importations. Hence, it asserts that the Court should render the 2003 BIR Ruling void since it prevents petitioner from enjoying the tax exemption granted to it under its franchise. Likewise, petitioner insists that it has met the conditions set forth under Section 13 (b) (2) of PD No. 1590 and is thus exempt from paying the excise tax in question. Finally, petitioner posits that it had complied with the requirements under Sections 204 (c) and 229 of the Tax Code . It explains that its refund claims were filed within the two-year prescriptive period, and that it has sufficiently proven its payment of the subject excise tax. CIR's Counter-Arguments 209 Respondent CIR alleges that the Court has no jurisdiction to take on the present cases. He contends that the Petitions primarily seek the nullification of the 2002 DOE Certification and 2003 BIR Ruling which, he argues, is outside the jurisdiction of this Court. He also contends that petitioner failed to prove that the Jet A-1 fuel is not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality, and price, making it ineligible to the tax exemption granted under PD No. 1590 . COC's Counter-Arguments 210 Respondent COC argues that petitioner improperly invoked the Jurisdiction of the Court since it elevated the present claims on the ground of the CIR's inaction. He insists that excise tax on imported articles is under the ambit of Customs Law. It states that petitioner should have followed the procedures laid down under the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines ("TCCP") and not the Tax Code , citing the case of Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. CIR (hereinafter referred to as the "Caltex Case") . 211 Given the same, he posits that under Customs Law, the taxpayer should first await the adverse decision of the COC before it can elevate its claim to this Court. Since the COC has yet to issue his decision on the claims, it stresses that the Court has no jurisdiction to take on the cases. He also points out that petitioner's act of filing its claim with the CIR is erroneous since the later has no power to entertain refunds of excise tax on imported articles. He stresses that petitioner's act of filing simultaneously with the COC and CIR constitutes forum shopping rendering the present cases dismissible under the "Twin Dismissal Rule." Likewise, the COC contends that petitioner erred in assailing the validity of the 2003 BIR Ruling . He posits that the proper way of questioning the ruling was to file a request for review with the Secretary of Finance ("SOP") within 30 days from petitioner's receipt of the same, as provided for under Department Order ("DO") No. 7-02 and not with this Court. Considering that petitioner failed to file a timely appeal with the SOF, the COC contends that the said ruling has already become final. Finally, he argues that petitioner failed to prove its entitlement to the tax refund/credit prayed for. He explains that petitioner was not able to show evidence that the Jet A-1 fuel was not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality, and price during the time it imported the subject products herein. The Ruling of the Court After going through the arguments raised by the parties, this Court finds the instant Petitions for Review meritorious. Petitioner's refund claims are governed by the Tax Code. Contrary to the assertion of respondents, the subject tax in these cases are excise tax on aviation fuel imposed under Section 148 (g) of the Tax Code and not by the TCCP or any other Customs Law. Being a type of internal revenue tax, it follows that the law governing its refund is not the TCCP but the Tax Code . This is consistent with the principle in statutory construction that "every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e. , that every part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment." 212 The fact that it is the COC who collects the said taxes does not make it less of an internal revenue tax. This is so since the COC is only collecting the same on behalf of the CIR pursuant to the delegated authority accorded to the former by the latter pursuant to Section 12 (a) of the Tax Code , to wit: "SEC. 12. Agents and Deputies for Collection of National Internal Revenue Taxes. The following are hereby constituted agents of the Commissioner: (a) The Commissioner of Customs and his subordinates with respect to the collection of national internal revenue taxes on imported goods ; (b) The head of the appropriate government office and his subordinates with respect to the collection of energy tax; and (c) Banks duly accredited by the Commissioner with respect to receipt of payments internal revenue taxes authorized to be made thru bank. Any officer or employee of an authorized agent bank assigned to receive internal revenue tax payments and transmit tax returns or documents to the Bureau of Internal Revenue shall be subject to the same sanctions and penalties prescribed in Sections 269 and 270 of this Code." SaCIDT Clearly, the burden of collecting the subject excise tax remains with the CIR. As such, it is he who has the authority to decide on the refund claims pursuant to Section 4 of the Tax Code , to wit: "SEC. 4. Power of the Commissioner to Interpret Tax Laws and to Decide Tax Cases. The power to interpret the provisions of this Code and other tax laws shall be under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Commissioner, subject to review by the Secretary of Finance. The power to decide disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under this Code or other laws or portions thereof administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue is vested in the Commissioner , subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals." 213 The Court is not unaware of the doctrine laid down in the Caltex Case . However, this Court finds the same inapplicable since the facts in the said case are not in all fours with those herein. Indeed, the Caltex Case covers the special import law under RA No. 1394 which was classified by the Supreme Court as part of Customs Law. On the other hand, as already explained above, the subject taxes herein are excise taxes on aviation fuel. Be that as it may, even if the Court subscribes to the contention of respondent COC that petitioner's claim is governed by the TCCP , as provided in the Caltex Case , his argument will still fall. In this case, it is undisputed that petitioner filed its claims for refund not only with the CIR but also with the COC. Under the current rule, the taxpayer requesting for refund need not wait for the decision of the BOC to elevate its claim to the Courts. This is the clear import of the Supreme Court in the case of Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (hereinafter referred to as "Nestle Case") , 214 to wit: " Accordingly, once a written protest is seasonably filed with the Collector of Customs the failure or inaction of the latter to promptly perform his mandated duty under the Tariff and Customs Code should not be allowed to prejudice the right of the party adversely affected thereby . Technicalities and legalisms, however exalted, should not be misused by the government to keep money not belonging to it, if any is proven, and thereby enrich itself at the expense of the taxpayers. If the State expects its taxpayers to observe fairness and honesty in paying their taxes, so must it apply the same standard against itself in refunding excess payments, if any, of such taxes. Indeed the State must lead by its own example of honor, dignity and uprightness." 215 Clearly, either way, the Court has competent jurisdiction to take on the instant cases. The filing of refund claims with both BOC and BIR does not constitute forum-shopping. Likewise, the Court finds that the act of petitioner in filing its refund claims with both BOC and BIR does not constitute forum shopping. Normally, the concept of forum shopping is only applicable to cases filed before the courts or in a court and in an administrative agency, except when the rules of the said administrative agency provide otherwise. The case of Land Car, Inc. v. Bachelor Express, Inc., et al. , 216 illustrates this point, to wit: cHECAS " Forum shopping refers to the act of availing oneself of several judicial remedies in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, substantially founded on the same transaction and identical material facts and circumstances, raising basically like issues either pending in, or already resolved by, some other court . The principle applies not only with respect to suits filed before courts but also in connection with a litigation commenced in court while an administrative proceeding is pending in order to defeat administrative processes in anticipation of an unfavorable administrative ruling and possibly a favorable court ruling . Forum shopping is said to exist where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other; or where, in the two or more cases pending, there is identity of (a) parties, (b) rights or causes of action, and (c) reliefs sought." 217 Hence, absent any allegation of a clear rule which prohibits the filing of refund claims with both the BOC and BIR, the Court cannot subscribe to the allegation of respondent BOC. Moreover, even assuming that the rule on forum shopping applies to this case, the Supreme Court has consistently allowed the relaxation of the said rule on account of special circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice. 218 Clearly, the act of petitioner in filing the claim with the BIR to avoid the toll of the two-year prescriptive period is a special circumstance warranting the relaxation of the rule on forum-shopping. Petitioner correctly invoked the jurisdiction of the Court. Having established that the governing law for the refund of excise taxes paid on the importation of Jet A-1 fuel is the Tax Code , the Court finds that petitioner correctly invoked the Court's jurisdiction pursuant to Section 3 (a) (2), Rule 4 of the RRCTA , to wit: "RULE 4 JURISDICTION OF THE COURT SEC. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Divisions . The Court in Divisions shall exercise: (a) Exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: (2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code or other applicable law provides a specific period for action: Provided, that in case of disputed assessments, the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the one hundred eighty day-period under Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code shall be deemed a denial for purposes of allowing the taxpayer to appeal his case to the Court and does not necessarily constitute a formal decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on the tax case; Provided, further, that should the taxpayer opt to await the final decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on the disputed assessments beyond the one hundred eighty day-period abovementioned, the taxpayer may appeal such final decision to the Court under Section 3(a), Rule 8 of these Rules; and Provided, still further, that in the case of claims for refund of taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the taxpayer must file a petition for review with the Court prior to the expiration of the two-year period under Section 229 of the National Internal Revenue Code ;" 219 AHDacC Based on the foregoing provision, this Court has jurisdiction to take on refund claims of taxes allegedly collected erroneously or illegally under the Tax Code which were, in return, not acted upon by respondent CIR, provided that the administrative and judicial claims were filed within the two-year period under Sections 204 and 229 of the Tax Code . Petitioner's compliance with the said period will be later on discussed by the Court. The CIR is a real party in interest in the case herein. Likewise, the Court finds no merit to the contention of respondents that the CIR is not a real party in interest in the cases herein. A real party in interest is defined under Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court , as follows: "Section 2. Parties in interest. A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest." As discussed, since the contested tax in the instant Petitions is an internal revenue tax, the power to collect the same is vested with the CIR, and, therefore, petitioner was correct in imputing the CIR as a real party in interest. Nevertheless, the COC was correctly joined as respondent in his capacity as the constituted agent of the CIR in collecting the subject excise tax in this case. 220 This Court has jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the 2003 BIR Ruling. As to the issue on whether the Court can validly rule on the 2003 BIR Ruling , the Court rules in the affirmative. There is no question that the interpretative rulings made by the CIR are appealable to this Court. However, this is subject to the condition that the proper administrative channel had first been resorted to by the party assailing the said issuance. 221 In the case of BIR Rulings, Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 44-01 222 provides for the administrative appeal process in questioning the said issuance, to wit: "Section 3. Rulings Adverse to the Taxpayer. A taxpayer who receives an adverse ruling from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may, within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of such ruling, seek its review by the Secretary of Finance , either by himself/itself or through his/its duly accredited agent or representative. The request for review shall be in writing and under oath . . . x x x" 223 Nonetheless, the Supreme Court, in the case of Banco de Oro, et al. v. Republic (hereinafter referred to as the "BDO Case") , 224 admitted certain exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies, to wit: "Under Section 4 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, interpretative rulings are reviewable by the Secretary of Finance. SEC. 4. Power of the Commissioner to Interpret Tax Laws and to Decide Tax Cases. The power to interpret the provisions of this Code and other tax laws shall be under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Commissioner, subject to review by the Secretary of Finance. Thus, it was held that "[i]f superior administrative officers [can] grant the relief prayed for, [then] special civil actions are generally not entertained." The remedy within the administrative machinery must be resorted to first and pursued to its appropriate conclusion before the court's judicial power can be sought ." Nonetheless, jurisprudence allows certain exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies: The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a relative one and its flexibility is called upon by the peculiarity and uniqueness of the factual and circumstantial settings of a case. Hence, it is disregarded (1) when there is a violation of due process , (2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question, (3) when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, (4) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned, (5) when there is irreparable injury, (6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter, (7) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable, (8) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim , (9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings, (10) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, (11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention . xxx xxx xxx The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies also finds no application when the exhaustion will result in an exercise in futility. HCaDIS xxx xxx xxx In exceptional cases, however, this court entertained direct recourse to it when " dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy ." 225 Here, petitioner admits that it was not able to file an appeal questioning the propriety of the 2003 BIR Ruling with the SOF. However, even if this is the case, it argues that since the said ruling was issued in violation of its rights to due process for having the effect of arbitrarily withdrawing its tax exemption privileges without giving it the opportunity to be heard, it insists that the circumstances in this case is an exception to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. After much deliberation, the Court finds itself in agreement with petitioner that the CTA Division is vested with jurisdiction to rule on the validity of 2003 BIR Ruling on the basis of the BDO Case . Nevertheless, even if this is the case, the Court stresses that it may still rule on the issue of petitioner's refund/credit claim without the need of resolving the propriety of the 2003 BIR Ruling . As discussed above, the Court is vested with jurisdiction to resolve the present claim under Section 3 (a) (2), Rule 4 of the RRCTA . Moreover, the issue as to the validity of the 2002 DOE Certification , to which the 2003 BIR Ruling is based, is still pending in court and has not yet attained finality which will render our decision on the issue premature. Petitioner's Petitions for Review were timely filed. As to the timeliness of the filing of the refund/credit claims, the governing laws are Sections 204 (C) and 229 of the Tax Code , which, respectively, apply to administrative and judicial claims for refund of erroneously collected taxes imposed under the Tax Code , to wit: "SEC. 204. Authority of the Commissioner to Compromise, Abate and Refund or Credit Taxes. (C) Credit or refund taxes erroneously or illegally received or penalties imposed without authority, refund the value of internal revenue stamps when they are returned in good condition by the purchaser, and, in his discretion, redeem or change unused stamps that have been rendered unfit for use and refund their value upon proof of destruction. No credit or refund of taxes or penalties shall be allowed unless the taxpayer files in writing with the Commissioner a claim for credit or refund within two (2) years after the payment of the tax or penalty : Provided, however, that a return filed showing an overpayment shall be considered as a written claim for credit or refund. x x x SEC. 229. Recovery of Tax Erroneously or Illegally Collected. No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected , or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, of any sum alleged to have been excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner ; but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress. AHCETa In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the expiration of two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment : Provided, however, That the Commissioner may, even without a written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax, where on the face of the return upon which payment was made, such payment appears clearly to have been erroneously paid." 226 Based on the foregoing, in order to successfully prosecute a claim for refund of erroneously collected taxes, the Tax Code provides that both the claim for refund with the BIR and the subsequent appeal to this Court must be filed within the two-year period from the date of payment of the said tax. 227 In this case, petitioner paid the subject taxes, filed its claim for refund with the CIR, and subsequently its judicial claim with this Court on the following dates: CTA Case No. Date of Payment under Protest End of the two-year period from payment of the excise tax Date of Written Claim for Refund to CIR Date of Filing of the Petition for Review 7670 11 August 2005 228 11 August 2007 9 July 2007 229 10 August 2007 230 22 December 2005 231 22 December 2007 22 December 2005 232 22 December 2007 8 March 2006 233 8 March 2008 18 April 2006 234 18 April 2008 6 June 2006 235 6 June 2008 7818 3 August 2006 236 3 August 2008 237 1 July 2008 238 4 August 2008 239 3 August 2006 240 3 August 2008 9 August 2006 241 9 August 2008 11 October 2006 242 11 October 2008 6 October 2006 243 6 October 2008 14 December 2006 244 14 December 2008 7869 7 February 2007 245 7 February 2009 246 16 January 2008 247 9 February 2009 248 16 March 2007 249 16 March 2009 27 March 2007 250 27 March 2009 22 March 2007 251 22 March 2009 12 April 2007 252 12 April 2009 10 May 2007 253 10 May 2009 5 June 2007 254 5 June 2009 7954 30 July 2007 255 30 July 2009 17 April 2009 256 30 July 2009 257 14 September 2007 258 14 September 2009 12 September 2007 259 12 September 2009 7 November 2007 260 7 November 2009 9 January 2008 261 9 January 2010 8034 5 March 2008 262 5 March 2010 18 November 2009 263 5 March 2010 264 26 March 2008 265 26 March 2010 10 April 2008 266 10 April 2010 17 April 2008 267 17 April 2010 15 May 2008 268 15 May 2010 18 June 2008 269 18 June 2010 As can be gleaned from the foregoing, petitioner was able to timely file its administrative and judicial claim within the two-year period prescribed under Sections 204 and 229 of the Tax Code . Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the instant Petitions for Review. Petitioner is entitled to the tax credit/refund being claimed. Considering that the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the present Petitions, it shall now determine whether the excise taxes collected from petitioner were indeed erroneously or illegally collected as contemplated under the Tax Code. In order to determine whether petitioner is exempt from paying the excise taxes by virtue of its charter and consequently entitled to the refund prayed for, the Court must determine whether it complies with the conditions set forth under Section 13 of PD No. 1590 and Section 22 of RA No. 9337 , which are enumerated as follows: a) The corporate income taxes due were paid by petitioner; b) The imported Jet A-1 fuel was used by petitioner in its transport and non-transport operations and other activities incidental thereto; c) The imported Jet A-1 fuel was not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality or price during the time of its importation; and d) The petitioner is a VAT registered taxpayer and was able to duly account for the VAT on its sale of goods, property, or service and its lease of property during the period of its importations. Petitioner was able to prove that it paid its corporate income taxes and VAT during the relevant periods. In order to prove that it paid its corporate income taxes and filed the prerequisite returns during the time it imported the subject Jet A-1 fuel, petitioner presented its duly filed Annual Income Tax Returns for fiscal year ending 31 March 2006 to 2009, as follows: ScHADI Income Tax Return Taxable Year Exhibit 2006 (plus amended returns) "S 10 ", 270 "T 10 ", 271 "I 13 ", 272 and "J 13 " 273 2007 (plus amended returns) "U 10 ", 274 "V 10 ", 275 and "K 13 " 276 2008 (plus amended returns) "P 6 -1", 277 "D 8 ", 278 "E 8 ", 279 "F 8 ", 280 "G 8 ", 281 "L 13 ", 282 13 ", 283 "N 13 ", 284 and "O 13 " 285 2009 "D 11 " 286 Likewise, it also presented its pertinent VAT returns during the period it imported the relevant Jet A-1 fuel, to wit: VAT Return Period Exhibit 2nd Quarter 2006 (plus amended returns) "P 13 ", 287 "Q 13 ", 288 and "R 13 " 289 3rd Quarter 2006 (plus amended returns) "S 13 ", 290 "T 13 ", 291 "U 13 ", 292 and "V 13 " 293 4th Quarter 2006 (plus amended returns) "W 13 ", 294 "X 13 ", 295 "Y 13 ", 296 "Z 13 ", 297 "A 14 ", 298 and "B 14 " 299 1st Quarter 2007 "W 10 " 300 2nd Quarter 2007 "C 14 " 301 3rd Quarter 2007 (plus amended returns) "D 14 ", 302 "E 14 ", 303 "G 14 ", 304 and "H 14 " 305 4th Quarter 2007 "X 10 " 306 1st Quarter 2008 "Z 10 " 307 2nd Quarter 2008 (plus amended returns) "A 11 ", 308 14 " 309 3rd Quarter 2008 "B 11 " 310 4th Quarter 2008 (plus amended returns) "C 11 ", 311 14 ", 312 14 " 313 1st Quarter 2009 (plus amended returns) "E 11 ", 314 14 ", 315 "L 14 ", 316 14 " 317 2nd Quarter 2009 (plus amended returns) "N 14 ", 318 14 ", 319 14 " 320 3rd Quarter 2009 (plus amended returns) "P 14 ", 321 14 ", 322 and "T 14 " 323 4th Quarter 2009 (plus amended returns) "R 14 ", 324 and "U 14 " 325 Given the aforementioned documents presented by petitioner, the Court finds petitioner compliant with the first and last requisites provided under Section 13 of PD No. 1590 and the condition set by Section 22 of RA No. 9337 . Petitioner was able to prove that the Jet A-1 fuel was imported. In order to prove that the subject Jet A-1 fuel was imported, petitioner presented the following documents: (a) ATRIG, (b) tanker bill of ladings ("AWB/BL"), (c) Surveyor's Reports, (d) Import Entry and Internal Revenue Declarations ("IIDE"); and (e) Official Receipts/Deposit Slips ("OR/DP") evidencing payment of the said excise tax collected, for each of the subject importations, as follows: Date of Importation Exhibit Reference Amount of Excise Taxes Paid under Protest OR/DP AWB/BL SR IIDE ATRIG CTA CASE NO. 7670 13 July 2005 I-4 326 I-5 327 I-6 328 I-7 329 I-8 330 P53,076,377.00 23 November 2005 K-4 331 K-5 332 K-6 333 K-7 334 K-8 335 24,775,172.00 23 November 2005 L-4 336 L-5 337 L-6 338 L-7 339 L-8 340 28,357,995.00 17 February 2006 M-4 341 M-5 342 M-6 343 M-7 344 M-8 345 53,062,743.00 23 March 2006 N-3 346 N-4 347 N-5 348 N-6 349 N-7 350 64,851,866.00 28 April 2006 O-3 351 O-4 352 O-5 353 O-6 354 O-7 355 42,834,897.00 CTA CASE NO. 7818 3 July 2006 AAA-3 356 AAA-4 357 AAA-5 358 AAA-6 359 AAA-7 360 10,492,152.00 1 July 2006 CCC-3 361 CCC-4 362 CCC-5 363 CCC-6 364 CCC-7 365 54,660,848.00 7 July 2006 DDD-4 366 I 15 -36 367 I 15 -9 368 Z 15 -09 369 58,535,245.00 18 August 2006 EEE-3-a 370 I 15 -37 371 I 15 -10 372 EEE-6 373 47,549,251.00 2 September 2006 FFF-3 374 FFF-4 375 FFF-5 376 FFF-6 377 FFF-7 378 37,339,138.00 10 November 2006 GGG-3 379 GGG-4 380 GGG-5 381 GGG-6 382 GGG-7 383 31,863,296.00 CTA CASE NO. 7869 18 January 2007 DDDDD-2 384 DDDDD-3 385 DDDDD-4 386 DDDDD-5 387 DDDDD-6- 388 45,880,876.00 12 February 2007 EEEEE-1 389 EEEEE-3 390 EEEEE-4 391 EEEEE-5 392 EEEEE-6 393 6,466,405.00 12 February 2007 EEEEE-2 394 34,964,402.00 16 February 2007 GGGGG-1 395 GGGGG-2 396 GGGGG-3 397 Z 15 -15 398 GGGGG-5 399 58,633,179.00 14 March 2007 IIIII-1 400 IIIII-2 401 IIIII-3 402 IIIII-4 403 IIIII-5 404 41,595,483.00 10 April 2007 KKKKK-1 405 KKKKK-2 406 KKKKK-3 407 KKKKK-4 408 KKKKK-5 409 40,557,820.00 10 April 2007 MMMMM-1 410 137,988.00 CTA CASE NO. 7954 14 July 2007 H 6 -3 411 I 6 -2 412 I 6 -3 413 I 6 -5 414 I 6 -6 415 52,986,165.00 5 August 2007 J 6 -1 416 J 6 -2 417 J 6 -3 418 J 6 -4 419 J 6 -5 420 59,258,962.00 18 August 2007 K 6 -1-g 421 L 6 -1 422 K 6 -3 423 K 6 -1-h 424 K 6 -5 425 41,386,730.00 5 October 2007 M 6 -1 426 M 6 -2 427 M 6 -3 428 M 6 -4 429 M 6 -5 430 53,140,393.00 13 December 2007 N 6 -1 431 N 6 -2 432 N 6 -3 433 N 6 -4 434 N 6 -5 435 29,429,503.00 CTA CASE NO. 8034 5 February 2008 W 8 -2 436 W 8 -3 437 W 8 -4 438 W 8 -5 439 W 8 -6 440 58,839,935.60 24 February 2008 Y 8 -1 441 Y 8 -2 442 Y 8 -3 443 Y 8 -4 444 Y 8 -5 445 39,547,678.00 8 March 2008 Z 8 -1 446 Z 8 -3 447 Z 8 -4 448 Z 8 -5 449 Z 8 -6 450 47,740,472.00 8 March 2008 Z 8 -2 451 181,155.00 24 April 2008 A 9 -1 452 A 9 -2 453 A 9 -3 454 A 9 -4 455 A 9 -5 456 20,724,223.00 30 May 2008 B 9 -1 457 B 9 -2 458 B 9 -3 459 B 9 -4 460 B 9 -5 461 35,757,717.00 The characteristics of each of the aforementioned documents was discussed in various jurisprudence. In Saludo, et al. v. Court of Appeals , 462 the Supreme Court defined a bill of lading as follows: A bill of lading is a written acknowledgment of the receipt of the goods and an agreement to transport and deliver them at a specified place to a person named or on his order. Such instrument may be called a shipping receipt, forwarder's receipt and receipt for transportation. The designation, however, is immaterial. It has been hold that freight tickets for bus companies as well as receipts for cargo transported by all forms of transportation, whether by sea or land, fall within the definition. Under the Tariff and Customs Code, a bill of lading includes airway bills of lading. The two-fold character of a bill of lading is all too familiar; it is a receipt as to the quantity and description of the goods shipped and a contract to transport the goods to the consignee or other person therein designated, on the terms specified in such instrument . aICcHA The IIDE was described by the Supreme Court in CIR v. Engineering Equipment and Supply Company, et al. 463 as "the very documents where the nature, quantity and value of the imported goods are declared and where the customs duties, internal revenue taxes and other fees or charges incident to the importation are computed." Meanwhile, an ATRIG is the authority issued by the BIR to the COC, allowing the release of imported goods from customs custody upon payment of applicable taxes, or proof of exemption payment thereof, whichever is applicable. 464 Hence, the existence of any of the three documents will prove that the contested Jet A-1 Fuel was indeed imported by petitioner and not purchased locally. As can be gleaned from the table above, petitioner was able to present at least the AWB/BL, IIDE, or ATRIG for each of its purchase of Jet A-1 Fuel. The Court thus finds that petitioner was able to prove that the Jet A-1 fuel was imported and not purchased locally. Petitioner's was able to prove that the imported Jet A-1 fuel was used in its operations and incidental activities. Aside from proving the fact of importation, the ATRIG, corroborated by other documentary and testimonial evidence, may be considered as proof that the imported Jet A-1 fuel was, indeed, used in petitioner's transport operations and other activities incidental thereto. This is in line with the ruling in Commissioner of Customs v. Air Philippines Corporation . 465 In the said case, the Court En Banc ruled that the entries in the ATRIG are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein considering that it is a public document and the tedious processes the importer and the BIR undergoes before the latter issues the said document. The relevant portion of the Decision is quoted, to wit: "The Court En Banc cannot brush aside the tedious process that an ATRIG undergoes before the same is issued. The said document provides the details of importation, the intended use of the same, as well as the destination of the shipment . Thus, We adopt the ruling of the First Division relative thereto, and quote pertinent portions thereon, as follows: "On the probative value of the ATRIG, the Court agrees with petitioner that the ATRIG is a document that is issued by the BIR in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Revenue Memorandum Order No. 35-2002, and the same is addressed to the Commissioner of Customs, allowing the release of imported goods from customs custody upon payment of applicable taxes, or proof of exemption from payment thereof, whichever is applicable. And while respondent COC claims that the ATRIGs are self-serving, it cannot deny that said ATRIGs went through verification procedure by the BIR prior to its issuance. Therefore, it is not correct to claim that the contents thereof are self-serving." Moreover, in the case of Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Commissioner of Customs , the Court of Tax Appeals considered ATRIGs as public documents since they were issued and certified by no less than the Commissioner of Internal Revenue himself. Thus, the entries in ATRIGS are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, pursuant to Section 19 (a), Rule 132 of the Rules of Court . Pertinent portions of the said Decision are herein quoted for ready reference: An examination of the ATRIGs presented by petitioner shows that these are public documents pursuant to Section 19 (a), Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, and thus, prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. EHaASD Section 19 (a), Rule 132 of the Rules of Court reads: Sec. 19. Classes of Documents. For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private. Public documents are: (a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country; The ATRIGs are records of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which were issued and certified by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, a public officer, in the performance of her official functions; thus, it is clear that the ATRIGs are public documents pursuant to paragraph (a), Sec. 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court." Here, aside from the ATRIG, petitioner presented the testimonies of its Supervising Fuel Technical Specialist-Fuel Management, Mr. Rizal, and ICPA Atty. Acyatan Guerrero. In his testimony, Mr. Rizal described in detail the movement of the subject Jet A-1 fuel after its release from the BOC until the same were loaded in petitioner's aircrafts, 466 to wit: [4]Q: In the course of your duties as Supervising Fuel Technical Specialist, do you remember purchases made by PAL of Jet A-1 aviation fuel during the period involved in this case, i.e. , August 2005 to October 2008? A: Yes. PAL made several purchases of Jet A-1 aviation fuel and had them imported into the Philippines. During the period of August 2005 to October 2008, there were a total of 30 importations of Jet A-1 aviation fuel. [5]Q: What happened to the Jet A-1 aviation fuel purchased and imported by PAL? A: PAL consumed all the fuel that it imported for its domestic flight operations. [6]Q: What do you exactly mean by the term "consumed"? A: PAL loaded the imported fuel into its aircrafts. [7]Q: Can you please explain briefly to this Honorable Court the procedure in loading the fuel imported by PAL into its aircrafts? A: The process starts even before the imported fuel arrives at the port of discharge (primary depot). Before arrival of the ship carrying the imported fuel, a PAL representative submits a letter-application for a permit to discharge to the Bureau of Customs ("BOC"). The BOC, through the concerned District Collector of Customs, places his conforme to the letter by signing the same which, in turn, will serve as the approved permit to discharge. PAL also submits a letter to the Department of Energy informing the latter of the incoming importation of fuel. PAL then pays the wharfage fees to the Philippine Ports Authority on the shipment. xxx xxx xxx [11]Q: Once cleared from customs custody, what happens to the imported fuel? DaIAcC A: To facilitate the withdrawal of the imported fuel from the primary depot, a PAL representative prepares a Stock Transfer Ticket with a Jet A-1 Release Certificate authorizing the transfer of the fuel from the primary depot to the secondary/airport depots such as the Joint Oil Companies Aviation Fuel and Storage Plant ("JOCASP") and the PAL-owned depot. [12]Q: What happens upon arrival of the imported fuel at the secondary/airport depots? A: The imported fuel will be subjected to field testing by JOCASP/PAL personnel. Once passed, the fuel will be stored in the tanks and ready for withdrawal, to be uplifted to PAL's aircrafts. A PAL personnel then prepares a Stock Status Report indicating the amount of fuel that arrived as well as the amount of fuel withdrawn and uplifted to PAL's aircrafts. The Stock Status Report is accomplished every day. [13]Q: What preparations are necessary before the imported fuel is actually loaded into the aircrafts? A: A PAL personnel determines the actual fuel load requirement of the flight. Thereafter, a fuel issue slip is prepared to include details such as the flight number, aircraft registry, destination, timings and meter readings. Total volume issued to aircraft is determined right after completion of refueling. Hence, an issue slip is accompanied every time fuel is loaded into an aircraft. xxx xxx xxx [15]Q: What happens after the fuel is loaded into the aircrafts of PAL? A: The fuel loaded or carried onto PAL's aircrafts will be used by PAL for its flight operations. xxx xxx xxx [18]Q: What document, if any, proves that all importations of Jet A-1 aviation fuel during the period of August 2005 to October 2008 were accounted for and used for PAL's flight operations? A: I reviewed Stock Status Reports which reflect the details relating to the movement of the imported fuel from the primary depot to JOCASP/PAL owned airport depots. The Stock Transfer Report is a daily record of the amount of imported fuel that arrived at the JOCASP/PAL owned airport depots, the amount of imported fuel that is withdrawn and loaded into PAL aircrafts . xxx xxx xxx [22]Q: What is the basis of the data appearing on the Jet A-1 Stock Status Reports? A: The data reflected in the Stock Status Reports are gathered from the Stock Transfer Tickets, Jet A-1 Release Certificates, and Fuel Issue Slips prepared and issued by PAL personnel . [23]Q: Can you briefly explain the purpose of these documents you have just mentioned? A: A Stock Transfer Ticket serves as proof that the imported fuel has been transferred from the primary depot to the secondary/airport depots. The Stock Transfer Ticket is accompanied by a Jet A-1 Release Certificate which, in turn, certifies that the fuel has undergone quality testing, meets industry standards, and is fit for consumption. Lastly, a Fuel Issue Slip serves as proof that the fuel, as cleared for consumption, was in fact loaded in PAL's aircrafts ." 467 In addition to the testimony of Mr. Rizal, petitioner also presented its Stock Status Reports, Stock Transfer Tickets, Jet A-1 Release Certificates, and Fuel Issue Slips for the relevant periods in question to prove that the imported Jet A-1 fuel was fully consumed by petitioner in its domestic operations. TAacHE The said documents were all verified by the ICPA, Atty. Acyatan-Guerrero, who confirmed via her report and judicial affidavit that petitioner indeed consumed all its imported Jet A-1 fuel in its domestic airline operations. 468 In this light, the Court finds petitioner to have established its compliance with the second requisite under Section 13 of PD No. 1590 . Petitioner was able to prove that the Jet A-1 fuel is not locally available in reasonable quantity. The Court En Banc , in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. v. Air Philippines Corporation , 469 clarified that the taxpayer-claimant, in the satisfaction of the third requisite, need only satisfy one of the three conditions in order to qualify for exemption in paying excise taxes on the importation of Jet A-1 Fuel. The Court En Banc explained that this is so because PD No. 1590 uses the conjunction "or" which signifies that the law imposes an alternative rather than a cumulative qualification. Bearing the same in mind, the Court will now rule on petitioner's compliance with the third requirement imposed under PD No. 1590 . In order to prove that there was no reasonable quantity/supply of Jet A-1 fuel locally available during the time of its importation, petitioner presented the "Supply Demand Balance" prepared by Ms. Dela Cruz of the DOE showing the supply and demand of Jet Fuel for the years 2001 to 2010, 470 partially reproduced below: SUPPLY DEMAND BALANCE 2001-2010 IN THOUSAND BARRELS (MB) Details Jet Fuel 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Inventory (beginning) 302 291 315 309 817 856 693 484 269 577 Production Local 4,825 5,050 5,024 4,584 5,576 5,867 5,990 5,566 5,248 6,103 Importation 1,895 1,336 1,783 2,867 2,039 2,292 2,978 3,278 3,959 3,519 Total Local Available Supply 7,022 6,677 7,122 7,760 8,432 9,015 9,661 9,328 9,476 10,199 Demand 6,750 6,438 6,699 7,349 7,879 8,237 8,855 8,850 9,456 9,617 Export - 40 - - - - 273 78 - 59 +(-) Local Available Supply v. Demand 272 239 423 411 552 778 806 478 20 582 The information provided in the table was further discussed by Ms. Dela Cruz during her cross and re-direct examinations, 471 the relevant portions of which are hereby quoted to wit: "SOLICITOR ALBAR Q: Now, referring to the table which you attached in your affidavit or which was sent to us which you referred to in your Judicial Affidavit, what do you mean by Refinery Production ? MS. DELA CRUZ A: Refinery Production refers to the local production of the old refiners . SOLICITOR ALBAR Q: So how would you differentiate the refinery production from the total local available supply ? MS. DELA CRUZ A: As I have said before, Refinery Production refers only to the local production of the old refiners , while the total local available supply includes not only the refinery production but also the importation and petroleum inventory . xxx xxx xxx ATTY. MARTIN Q: May I refer you now to the first table, because this pertains to the aviation fuel which is the actually the subject matter of this case, I noticed, Ms. Dela Cruz that you had here a data for importation? MS. DELA CRUZ A: Yes, sir. ATTY. MARTIN Q: So, you mean to say, Ms. Dela Cruz, that even the importations subject of the present case is considered as part of the locally available supply ? MS. DELA CRUZ A: Yes, sir . xxx xxx xxx ATTY. MARTIN Q: It would appear from the table, this table denominated as supply/demand balance with breakdown importation that the total local available supply of Jet A-1 Fuel is greater than the demand for those specific period, is that correct for those specific years ? MS. DELA CRUZ A: Yes, sir. ATTY. MARTIN Q: However, this is so, because it included the importation by Domestic Airline Companies, would that be correct, Ms. Dela Cruz ? HcDSaT MS. DELA CRUZ A: Yes, sir because all imports regardless of the importers should be part of the total supply. xxx xxx xxx ASSO. SOL. LA TORRE Q: What about the details on the demand it also included the demand of the airlines companies is that correct? MS. DELA CRUZ A: Yes, ma'am. ASSO. SOL. LA TORRE Q: How then do you compute for the supply and demand of JET fuel for the airlines companies what is the procedure, if you know? MS. DELA CRUZ A: To get the total supply and demand of JET Fuel of the airlines companies we have to add the three (3) components imports, production and inventory of Jet Fuel, then subtract from these total the demand, to get the total local available supply. JUSTICE BAUTISTA When you say demand it's the actual output or actual consumption ? MS. DELA CRUZ A: Yes, your Honors ." As can be gleaned from the "Supply Demand Balance" Table and as further elucidated by Ms. Dela Cruz, the Total Local Available Supply is computed by adding Inventory at the beginning of the year, Production Local , which corresponds to fuel locally refined in the Philippines, and Jet A-1 fuel imported in the Philippines, including those made by airline companies, specifically, the subject importations in this case. Hence, in order for the Court to fully appreciate whether indeed there was sufficient or insufficient supply of Jet A-1 fuel in the Philippines, we find it proper to deduct the total importation made by airline companies during the relevant period from the Total Local Available Supply . The information was provided by the DOE in its letter, dated 6 June 2011, 472 to wit: Airline Companies Imports of Jet Fuel in Thousand Barrels, MB Year Volume 2001 1,861 2002 1,295 2003 1,550 2004 1,678 2005 1,300 2006 1,341 2007 1,777 2008 1,842 2009 1,715 2010 1,868 Aside from the foregoing, the Supreme Court, in PAL v. CIR , 473 ruled that the term "locally available fuel" excludes imported Jet A-1 fuel, to wit: "In view of the foregoing, the Court observes that the phrase "purchase of domestic petroleum products for use in its domestic operations" which characterizes the tax privilege LOI 1483 withdrew refers only to PAL's tax exemptions on passed on excise tax costs due from the seller, manufacturer/producer of locally manufactured/produced goods for domestic sale and does not, in any way, pertain to any of PAL's tax privileges concerning imported goods , may it be (a) PAL's tax exemption on excise tax costs which are merely passed on to it by the importer when it buys imported goods from the latter (the second tax exemption under the second kind of tax privilege); or (b) PAL's tax exemption on its direct excise tax liability when it imports the goods itself (the third kind of tax privilege). Both textual and contextual analyses lead to this conclusion: ASTcaE First, examining its phraseology, the word "domestic," which means "of or relating to one's own country" or "an article of domestic manufacture," clearly pertains to goods manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sales or consumption or for any other disposition as opposed to things imported. In other words, by sheer divergence of meaning, the term "domestic petroleum products" could not refer to goods which are imported . Second, examining its context, certain "whereas clauses" in LOI 1483 disclose that the said law was intended to lift the tax privilege discussed in Department of Finance (DOF) Ruling dated November 17, 1969 (Subject DOF Ruling) which, based on a reading of the same, clarified that PAL's franchise included tax exemptions on aviation gas, fuel and oil which are manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sales (and not only to those imported). In other words, LOI 1483 was meant to divest PAL from the tax privilege which was tackled in the Subject DOF Ruling, namely, its tax exemption on aviation gas, fuel and oil which are manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sales. Consequently, if LOI 1483 was intended to withdraw the foregoing tax exemption, then the term "purchase of domestic petroleum products for use in its domestic operations" as used in LOI 1483 could only refer to "goods manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sales or consumption or for any other disposition," and not to "things imported." In this respect, it cannot be gainsaid that PAL's tax exemption privileges concerning imported goods remain beyond the scope of LOI 1483 and thus, continue to subsist . In this case, records disclose that Caltex imported aviation fuel from abroad and merely re-sold the same to PAL, tacking the amount of excise taxes it paid or would be liable to pay to the government on to the purchase price. Evidently, the said petroleum products are in the nature of "things imported" and thus, beyond the coverage of LOI 1483 as previously discussed . As such, considering the subsistence of PAL's tax exemption privileges over the imported goods subject of this case, PAL is allowed to claim a tax refund on the excise taxes imposed and due thereon. Hence, based on the foregoing discussions, in order to determine the accurate Total Local Available Supply in accordance with both law and jurisprudence, the total volume of importation should be excluded from the computation as reproduced below: Details Jet Fuel 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Inventory (beginning) 302 291 315 309 817 856 693 484 269 577 Production Local 4,825 5,050 5,024 4,584 5,576 5,867 5,990 5,566 5,248 6,103 Total Local Available Supply 5,127 5,341 5,339 4,893 6,393 6,723 6,683 6,050 5,517 6,680 Demand 6,750 6,438 6,699 7,349 7,879 8,237 8,855 8,850 9,456 9,617 Export - 40 - - - - 273 78 - 59 Local Available Supply v. Demand (1,623) (1,097) (1,360) (2,456) (1,486) (1,514) (2,172) (2,800) (3,939) (2,937) Evidently, the demand of Jet A-1 Fuel for the years 2005 to 2008 consistently exceeded the Total Local Available Supply by 1,486 MB for 2005, 1,514 MB for 2006, 2,172 MB for 2007, and 2800 MB for 2008. This certainly proves that Jet A-1 fuel was not available in reasonable quantity in the Philippines during said period. This information is further supported by the certifications issued by the ATO, now the CAAP, which provides: cDSAEI "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This is to certify that Jet A-1 Aviation Fuel under Bill of Lading No. x x x is not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality and price and is necessary/incidental for the operation of Philippines Airlines." 474 The evidentiary value of these certifications was thoroughly explained by the Court En Banc in Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. v. Air Philippines Corporation , 475 to wit: "Significantly, respondent's subject importations of Jet A-1 fuel were supported by Certifications issued by the Air Transportation Office (ATO) to the effect that the imported Jet A-1 aviation fuel were not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality and price and it was necessary/incidental for the business operation of respondent. These ATO Certifications are given weight, pursuant to Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court , which provides: SEC. 44. Entries in official records. Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. The ATO Certifications were issued by the Air Transportation Office or ATO, which was replaced by the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) under Republic Act (RA) No. 9497. It had the competence to issue certifications pertaining to the availability of supply of aviation fuel. ATO's authority to issue certifications was in line with its general powers under Section 32 of its charter, RA No. 776, which reads as follows : SECTION 32. Powers and duties of the Administrator. Subject to the general control and supervision of the Department Head, the Administrator shall have among others, the following powers and duties: (1) To carry out the purposes and policies established in this Act; to enforce the provisions of, the rules and regulations issued in pursuant to, said Act, and he shall primarily be vested with authority to take charge of the technical and operational phase of civil aviation matters. xxx xxx xxx (21) To cooperate, assist and coordinate with any research and technical studies on design, materials, workmanship, construction, performance, maintenance, and operation of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances and air navigation facilities including aircraft fuel and oil ; Provided, That nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the duplication of the laboratory research, activities or technical studies of any existing governmental agency. The foregoing mandate negates the CIR's contention that only the DOE could best determine the local availability in reasonable quantity, quality and price of the subject Jet A-1 aviation fuel." 476 EDCcaS With all these pieces of evidence, it stands clear that petitioner was able to sufficiently prove the third requirement that the Jet A-1 fuel was not locally available in reasonable quantity, justifying petitioner's subject importations. With all the requirements for exemption met, the Court finds petitioner exempt from paying the excise taxes imposed under Section 148 (g) of the Tax Code on its importations from 13 July 2005 to 30 May 2008. All told, petitioner is entitled to a refund/tax credit of the erroneously collected and paid under protest excise taxes in the aggregate amount of P1,174,628,066.60. WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant Petitions for Review are GRANTED . Accordingly, co-respondents Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Commissioner of Customs are ORDERED TO REFUND OR ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner Philippine Airlines, Inc. in the amount of P1,174,628,066.60 , representing excise taxes paid for petitioner's importations of Jet A-1 fuel for its domestic operations for the period 13 July 2005 to 30 May 2008. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy, and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA, 22 November 2005. 2. Exhibit "SS-1"; CTA Case No. 7818 Records, pp. 26-33. 3. Emphasis supplied. 4. Letter of Instruction No. 1483, 31 October 1985. 5. See Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues ("JSFI"); CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 662-666; Pre-trial Order (for CTA Case No. 8034); CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 718-723. 6. Emphasis supplied. 7. See Exhibit "GGG-2"; CTA Case No. 7818 BOC Records, Vol. 1, pp. 62-66. 8. Emphasis supplied. 9. See JSFI; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. I, pp. 410-419; JSFI; CTA Case No. 7818 Records, pp. 375-380; JSFI; CTA Case No. 7869 Records, pp. 381-385; JSFI; CTA Case No. 7954 Records, pp. 262-266; JSFI; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 662-666; Pre-trial Order (for CTA Case No. 8034); CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 718-723. 10. Ibid ; See Exhibit "SS"; CTA Case No. 7818 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 24-25. 11. Emphasis supplied. 12. Exhibit "E", CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 3, pp. 1446-1450. 13. Exhibit "G", id. , Vol. 1, p. 65. 14. Exhibit "F", id. , p. 64. 15. An Act Amending Sections 27, 28, 34, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 119, 121, 148, 151, 236, 237 and 288 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, and for other purposes. 16. Emphasis supplied. 17. Exhibit "I-5"; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, p. 84; Exhibit "G 15 "; id. , pp. 1863-1864. 18. Exhibit "I-4"; id. , p. 83. 19. Exhibit "K-5"; CTA Case No. 7670 BOC Records, p. 36; Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 20. Exhibit "K-4"; id. , p. 142. 21. Exhibit "L-5"; CTA Case No. 7670 BOC Records, p. 55; Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 22. Exhibit "L-4"; id. , p. 161. 23. Exhibit "M-5"; id. , p. 182; Exhibit "G 15 "; id. , pp. 1863-1864. 24. Exhibit "M-4"; id. , p. 181. 25. Exhibit "N-4"; CTA Case No. 7670 BOC Records, p. 93; Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 26. Exhibit "N-3"; id. , p. 199. 27. Exhibit "O-4"; CTA Case No. 7670 BOC Records, p. 111; Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 28. Exhibit "O-3"; id. , p. 217. 29. Exhibit "AAA-4"; CTA Case No. 7818 BOC Records, p. 14; Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 30. Exhibit "AAA-3"; CTA Case No. 7818 BOC Records, p. 13. 31. Exhibit "CCC-4"; id. , p. 32; Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 32. Exhibit "CCC-3"; CTA Case No. 7818 BOC Records, p. 31. 33. Exhibit "DDD"; CTA Case No. 7818 Records, pp. 141-146; Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 34. Exhibit "DDD-4"; CTA Case No. 7818 Records, p. 154. 35. Exhibit "EEE"; id. , pp. 158-163; Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 36. Exhibit "EEE-3-a"; CTA Case No. 7818 Records, p. 170. 37. Exhibit "FFF-4"; CTA Case No. 7818 BOC Records, p. 50; Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 38. Exhibit "FFF-3"; CTA Case No. 7818 BOC Records, p. 49. 39. Exhibit "GGG-4"; id. , p. 68; Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 40. Exhibit "GGG-3"; CTA Case No. 7818 Records, p. 67. 41. Exhibit "DDDDD-3"; CTA Case No. 7869 BOC Records, p. 14; Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 42. Exhibit "DDDDD-2"; CTA Case No. 7869 BOC Records, p. 13. 43. Exhibit "EEEEE-3"; id. , p. 33; Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 44. Exhibit "EEEEE-1"; CTA Case No. 7869 BOC Records, p. 31. 45. Exhibit "EEEEE-3"; id. , p. 33; Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 46. Exhibit "EEEEE-2"; CTA Case No. 7869 BOC Records, p. 32. 47. Exhibit "GGGGG-2"; CTA Case No. 7869 Records, p. 156; Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 48. Exhibit "GGGGG-1"; CTA Case No. 7869 Records, p. 155. 49. Exhibit "IIIII-2"; CTA Case No. 7869 BOC Records, p. 50; Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 50. Exhibit "IIIII-1"; CTA Case No. 7869 BOC Records, p. 50. 51. Exhibit "KKKKK-2"; id. , p. 70; Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 52. Exhibit "KKKKK-1"; CTA Case No. 7869 BOC Records, p. 69. 53. Exhibit "KKKKK-2"; id. , p. 70; Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 54. Exhibit "MMMMM-1"; CTA Case No. 7869 Records, p. 209. 55. Exhibit "I 6 -2"; CTA Case No. 7954 BOC Records, p. 14; Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 56. Exhibit "H 6 -3"; CTA Case No. 7954 Records, p. 362. 57. Exhibit "K 6 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 3 pp. 1542-1553; Exhibit "G 15 "; id. , Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 58. Exhibit "J 6 -1"; id. , Vol. 3, p. 1541. 59. Exhibit "L 6 -1"; CTA Case No. 7954 BOC Records, p. 30; Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 60. Exhibit "K 6 -1-g"; id. , Vol. 3, p. 1556. 61. Exhibit "M 6 -2"; CTA Case No. 7954 BOC Records, p. 44; Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 62. Exhibit "M 6 -1"; CTA Case No. 7954 BOC Records, p. 43. 63. Exhibit "N 6 -2"; id. , p. 61; Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1 pp. 1863-1864. 64. Exhibit "N 6 -1"; CTA Case No. 7954 BOC Records, p. 60. 65. Exhibit "G 15 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 66. Ibid. 67. Exhibit "Y 8 -2"; id. , Vol. 2, p. 1110; Exhibit "G 15 " id. , Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 68. Exhibit "Y 8 -1"; id. , Vol. 2, p. 1109. 69. Exhibit "Z 6 -3"; id. , p. 1123; Exhibit "G 15 "; id. , Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 70. Exhibit "Z 8 -1"; id. , Vol. 2, p. 1121. 71. Exhibit "Z 3 -3"; id. , p. 1123; Exhibit "G 15 "; id. , Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 72. Exhibit "Z 8 -2"; id. , Vol. 2, p. 1122. 73. Exhibit "A 9 -2"; id. , Vol. 2, p. 1134; Exhibit "G 15 "; id. , Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 74. Exhibit "A 9 -1"; id. , Vol. 2, p. 1134. 75. Exhibit "B 9 -2"; id. , p. 1147; Exhibit "G 15 "; id. , Vol. 1, pp. 1863-1864. 76. Exhibit "B 9 -1"; id. , Vol. 2, p. 1146. 77. Exhibit "I"; id. , Vol. 1, pp. 68-73. 78. Exhibit "K"; id. , pp. 129-134. 79. Exhibit "L"; id. , pp. 148-153. 80. Exhibit "M"; id. , pp. 167-172. 81. Exhibit "N"; id. , pp. 187-192. 82. Exhibit "O"; id. , pp. 205-210. 83. Exhibit "AAA"; CTA Case No. 7818 BOC Records, pp. 1-6. 84. Exhibit "CCC"; id. , pp. 19-24. 85. Exhibit "DDD"; CTA Case No. 7818 Records, pp. 141-146. 86. Exhibit "EEE"; id. , pp. 158-163. 87. Exhibit "FFF"; CTA Case No. 7818 BOC Records, pp. 37-42. 88. Exhibit "GGG"; id. , pp. 55-60. 89. Exhibit "DDDDD"; CTA Case No. 7869 BOC Records, pp. 1-6. 90. Exhibit "EEEEE"; id. , pp. 19-24. 91. Exhibit "GGGGG"; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 3, pp. 1530-1535. 92. Exhibit "IIIII"; CTA Case No. 7869 BOC Records, pp. 38-43. 93. Exhibit "KKKKK"; id. , pp. 57-62. 94. Exhibit "MMMMM"; id. , pp. 77-82. 95. Exhibit "H 6 "; CTA Case No. 7954 BOC Records, pp. 1-6. 96. Exhibit "K 6 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 3, pp. 1542-1547. 97. Exhibit "I 6 "; CTA Case No. 7954 BOC Records, pp. 18-23. 98. Exhibit "L 6 "; id. , pp. 31-36. 99. Exhibit "N 6 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 3, pp. 1561-1566. 100. Petition for Review; CTA Case No. 8034 Records, pp. 5-216, with annexes. 101. Exhibit "Y 8 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 1103-1108. 102. Exhibit "Z 8 "; id. , pp. 1115-1120. 103. Exhibit "A 9 "; id. , pp. 1128-1133. 104. Exhibit "B 9 "; id. , pp. 1140-1145. 105. Exhibit "J": id. , Vol. 1, pp. 89-95; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE: id. , Vol. 4, p. 1924. 106. Exhibit "BBB"; CTA Case No. 7818 Records, pp. 88-94; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 4, p. 1943. 107. Exhibit "NNNNN"; CTA Case No. 7869 Records, pp. 88-93; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 4, pp. 1958-1959. 108. Exhibit "K 6 -1-a"; id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1548-1553; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, p. 1963. 109. Exhibit "X 8 "; CTA Case No. 7954 Records, pp. 388-393; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 4, p. 1973. 110. Petition for Review; id. , Vol. 1, pp. 1-223, with annexes. 111. Petition for Review; CTA Case No. 7818 Records, pp. 1-210, with annexes. 112. Petition for Review; CTA Case No. 7869 Records, pp. 1-215, with annexes. 113. Petition for Review; CTA Case No. 7954 Records, pp. 1-196, with annexes. 114. Petition for Review; CTA Case No. 8034 Records, pp. 5-216, with annexes. 115. Answer; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 237-243; Order; id. , p. 236. 116. Amended Answer; id. , pp. 248-254. 117. Answer; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 262-273; Order; id. , p. 261. 118. Addendum to Respondent Commissioner of Customs' Answer dated October 31, 2007; id. , pp. 274-276. 119. Pre-Trial Brief (For the Respondent); id. , pp. 278-285. 120. Pre-Trial Brief; id. , pp. 286-290. 121. Petitioner's Pre-Trial Brief; id. , pp. 298-304. 122. Minutes; id. , p. 316, Resolution; id. , p. 318. 123. Motion to Lift Resolution of Default; id. , pp. 320-337. 124. Manifestation and Motion; id. , pp. 338-345. 125. Resolution; id. , pp. 371-372. 126. Minutes; id. , p. 373. 127. JSFI; id. , pp. 410-419. 128. Resolution; id. , p. 421. 129. Answer; CTA Case No. 7818 Records, pp. 223-232; Order; id. , p. 217; Order, id. , p. 241; Order; id. , p. 247. 130. Answer; id. , pp. 248-261; Order; id. , p. 217, Order; id. , p. 241; Order; id. , p. 247. 131. Pre-Trial Brief; id. , pp. 233-240. 132. Pre-Trial Brief; id. , pp. 284-288; Order; id. , p. 283. 133. Pre-Trial Brief, id. , pp. 264-277. 134. Minutes; id. , p. 300. 135. JSFI; id. , pp. 375-380. 136. Resolution; id. , p. 382. 137. Answer; CTA Case No. 7869 Records, pp. 218-225. 138. Answer; id. , pp. 251-257; Order; id. , p. 243. 139. Pre-Trial Brief; id. , pp. 237-242. 140. Pre-Trial Brief; id. , pp. 244-250. 141. Minutes; id. , p. 266; Resolution; id. , p. 267. 142. Motion to Admit Pre-Trial Brief and Set Case for Pre-Trial; id. , pp. 270-290. 143. Omnibus Motion; id. , pp. 293-297. 144. Resolution; id. , pp. 353-357. 145. Minutes; id. , p. 360. 146. JSFI; id. , pp. 381-385. 147. Resolution; id. , p. 387. 148. Answer; CTA Case No. 7954 Records, pp. 203-210. 149. Answer; id. , pp. 218-227; Order; id. , p. 228. 150. Pre-Trial Brief; CTA Case No. 7954 Records, pp. 230-237. 151. Pre-Trial Brief; id. , pp. 238-244. 152. Pre-Trial Brief; id. , pp. 245-251. 153. Minutes; id. , p. 255. 154. JSFI; id. , pp. 262-266. 155. Resolution; id. , p. 268. 156. Answer; CTA Case No. 8034 Records, pp. 227-242. 157. Motion to Admit Attached Answer; id. , pp. 254-269. 158. Minutes; id. , p. 276. 159. Motion to Clarify Answer; id. , pp. 248-252. 160. Manifestation and Motion; id. , pp. 277-289. 161. Resolution; id. , p. 291. 162. Pre-Trial Brief; id. , pp. 270-275. 163. Pre-Trial Brief; id. , pp. 333-339. 164. Pre-Trial Brief; id. , pp. 301-326. 165. Motion to Consolidate; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 573-575; CTA Case No. 7818 Records, pp. 530-532; Motion to Consolidate to Third Division CTA Case Nos. 7670, 7818, 7869, 7954 and 8034; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 578-583; CTA Case No. 7818 Records, pp. 536-541; CTA Case No. 7869 Records, pp. 745-750; CTA Case No. 7954 Records, pp. 539-544; CTA Case No. 8034 Records, pp. 293-298. 166. Resolution; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 604-606; Resolution; CTA Case No. 7864 Records, p. 758; CTA Case No. 7954 Records, p. 557; CTA Case No. 8034 Records, p. 332. 167. Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum ; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 657-659. 168. Resolution; id. , pp. 704-705. 169. Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum ; id. , pp. 706-716. 170. Minutes; id. , p. 724. 171. JSFI; id. , pp. 662-666, and 672-678; Resolution; id. , pp. 635 and 671; Minutes; id. , p. 667; Manifestation (Re: Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues); id. , pp. 698-702. 172. Resolution, id. , pp. 718-723. 173. Request for the Issuance of Subpoena ad Testificandum ; id. , pp. 730-732. 174. Request for the Issuance of Subpoena ad Testificandum ; id. , pp. 761-763. 175. Subpoena Ad Testificandum ; id. , p. 730. 176. Affidavit, id. , Vol. 1, pp. 451-488; Minutes; id. , pp. 489, 491, 501, 513 and 519; Affidavit; CTA Case No. 7818 Records, pp. 419-455: Minutes; id. , pp. 456, 466, 473, 474, and 479; Affidavit; CTA Case No. 7869 Records, pp. 400-691; Minutes; id. , pp. 692 and 693; Affidavit; CTA Case No. 7954 Records, pp. 272-479; Minutes; CTA Case No. 7964 Records, pp. 484 and 504; Judicial Affidavit; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 647-656; Amended Judicial Affidavit; id. , pp. 687-697; Supplemental Judicial Affidavit; id. , pp. 784-789; Minutes; id. , pp. 724, 780, 793, and 836. 177. Affidavit; id. , Vol. 1, pp. 526-560; Minutes; id. , pp. 489, 491, 501, 513 and 519; Judicial Affidavit; CTA Case No. 7818 Records, pp. 486-515; Judicial Affidavit; CTA Case No. 7869 Records, pp. 701-708; Minutes; id. , p. 709; Judicial Affidavit; CTA Case No. 7954 Records, pp. 498-503; Minutes; id. , pp. 504, 524 and 538; Supplemental Affidavit; id. , pp. 534-537; Minutes; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 2, p. 724; Judicial Affidavit; id. , pp. 914-949; Minutes; id. , p. 950. 178. Judicial Affidavit; id. , pp. 772-776; Minutes; id. , pp. 780, 781, 793 and 836. 179. Minutes id. , pp. 867 and 909; Judicial Affidavit; id. , pp. 903-908. 180. Minutes; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 887, 890; TSN, Folder Vol. 2, pp. 26-159. 181. Judicial Affidavit; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 4, pp. 2192-2216, Minutes; id. , p. 2225. 182. Minutes; id. , pp. 2239, 2275 and 2310; Judicial Affidavit; id. , pp. 2281-2308. 183. Resolution; id. , Vol. 2, pp. 1002-1004. 184. Manifestation; id. , pp. 1005-1008. 185. Transmittal Letter; id. , p. 1039; Motion for Reconsideration; id. , pp. 1101-1280. 186. Manifestation and Request for Admission, id. , pp. 1070-1092. 187. Ibid. 188. Ibid. 189. Resolution; id. , pp. 1203-1204. 190. Formal Offer of Evidence; id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1324-1904. 191. Resolution; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 2102-2105. 192. Omnibus Motion; id. , pp. 2107-2118. 193. Resolution; id. , pp. 2161-2166. 194. Petitioner's Supplemental FOE; id. , pp. 2318-2332. 195. Resolution; id. , pp. 2394-2397. 196. Omnibus Motion; id. , pp. 2398-2408. 197. Resolution; id. , Vol. 5, pp. 2429-2431. 198. Compliance on the Submission of Requisite Documentary Exhibits (To Resolution dated 19 April 2018); id. , pp. 2438-2472. 199. Manifestation and Motion to Admit Attached 2nd Supplemental Formal Offer of Evidence; id. , pp. 2495-2540. 200. Resolution; id. , pp. 2560-2573. 201. Manifestation; id. , p. 2570; Order; id. , p. 2579. 202. Order; id. , p. 2579. 203. Memorandum; id. , pp. 2580-2590. 204. Memorandum; id. , pp. 2718-2747. 205. Memorandum for the Petitioner; Order; id. , pp. 2598-2680. 206. Resolution; id. , pp. 2755-2757. 207. Pre-trial Order; id. , Vol. 2, pp. 718-723. 208. Memorandum for the Petitioner; id. , Vol. 5, pp. 2598-2680. 209. Memorandum; id. , pp. 2580-2590. 210. Memorandum; id. , pp. 2718-2747. 211. G.R. No. L-20462, 30 June 1965. 212. Philippine International Trading Corporation v. COA , G.R. No. 183517, 22 June 2010. 213. Emphasis supplied. 214. G.R. No. 134114, 6 July 2001. 215. Emphasis supplied. 216. G.R. No. 154377, 8 December 2003. 217. Emphasis supplied. 218. BOC v. Devanadera, et al. , G.R. No. 193253, 8 September 2015. 219. Emphasis supplied. 220. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , C.T.A. Case No. 7935, 20 December 2012. 221. Banco de Oro, et al. v. Republic , G.R. No. 198756, 13 January 2015. 222. Circularizing Department Order No. 23-01 Providing for the Implementing Rules of the First Paragraph of Section 4 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 and Repealing for this Purpose Department Order No. 005-99 and Revenue Administrative Order No. 1-99, 11 October 2001. 223. Emphasis supplied. 224. Ibid. 225. Emphasis supplied. 226. Emphasis supplied. 227. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Goodyear Philippines, Inc. , G.R. No. 216130, 3 August 2016. 228. Exhibit "I-4"; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, p. 83. 229. Exhibit "J"; id. , pp. 89-95; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, p. 1924. 230. Petition for Review; id. , Vol. 1, pp. 1-223, with annexes. 231. Exhibit "K-4" id. , p. 142. 232. Exhibit "L-4"; id. , p. 161. 233. Exhibit "M-4"; id. , p. 181. 234. Exhibit "N-3"; id. , p. 199. 235. Exhibit "O-3"; id. , p. 217. 236. Exhibit "AAA-3"; CTA Case No. 7818 BOC Records, p. 13. 237. 3 August 2008 falls on a Sunday. 238. Exhibit "BBB"; CTA Case No. 7818 Records, pp. 88-94; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 4, p. 1943. 239. Petition for Review; CTA Case No. 7818 Records, pp. 1-210, with annexes. 240. Exhibit "CCC-3"; CTA Case No. 7818 BOC Records, p. 31. 241. Exhibit "DDD-4"; CTA Case No. 7818 Records, p. 154. 242. Exhibit "EEE-3-a"; id. , p. 170. 243. Exhibit "FFF-3"; CTA Case No. 7818 BOC Records, p. 49. 244. Exhibit "GGG-3"; CTA Case No. 7818 Records, p. 67. 245. Exhibit "DDDDD-2"; CTA Case No. 7869 BOC Records, p. 13. 246. 7 August 2009 falls on a Saturday. 247. Exhibit "NNNNN"; CTA Case No. 7869 Records, pp. 88-93; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 4, pp. 1958-1959. 248. Petition for Review; CTA Case No. 7869 Records, pp. 1-215, with annexes. 249. Exhibit "EEEEE-1"; CTA Case No. 7869 BOC Records, p. 31. 250. Exhibit "EEEEE-2"; id. , p. 32. 251. Exhibit "GGGGG-1"; CTA Case No. 7869 Records, p. 155. 252. Exhibit "IIIII-1"; CTA Case No. 7869 BOC Records, p. 50. 253. Exhibit "KKKKK-1"; id. , p. 69. 254. Exhibit "MMMMM-1"; CTA Case No. 7869 Records, p. 209. 255. Exhibit "H 6 -3"; CTA Case No. 7954 Records, p. 362. 256. Exhibit "K 6 -1-a"; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 3, pp. 1548-1553; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, p. 1963. 257. Petition for Review; CTA Case No. 7954 Records, pp. 1-196, with annexes. 258. Exhibit "J 6 -1"; id. , Vol. 3, p. 1541. 259. Exhibit "K 6 -1-g"; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 3, p. 1556. 260. Exhibit "M 6 -1"; CTA Case No. 7954 BOC Records, p. 43. 261. Exhibit "N 6 -1"; id. , p. 60. 262. Ibid. 263. Exhibit "X 8 "; CTA Case No. 7954 Records, pp. 388-393; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 4, p. 1973. 264. Petition for Review; CTA Case No. 8034 Records, pp. 5-216, with annexes. 265. Exhibit "Y 8 -1"; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 2, p. 1109. 266. Exhibit "Z 8 -1"; id. , p. 1121. 267. Exhibit "Z 8 -2"; id. , p. 1122. 268. Exhibit "A 9 -1"; id. , p. 1134. 269. Exhibit "B 9 -1"; id. , p. 1146. 270. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1675-1688; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 271. Id. , Vol. 3, p. 1680; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 272. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1740-1741; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 273. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1742-1743; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , pp. 1920-1992. 274. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1681-1687. 275. Id. , p. 1683. 276. Id. , pp. 1744-1745; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 277. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1567-1569. 278. Id. , pp. 1580-1582. 279. Id. , pp. 1583-1585. 280. Id. , pp. 1586-1588. 281. Id. , pp. 1589-1595. 282. Id. , pp. 1746-1747; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 283. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1748-1749; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 284. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1750-1751; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 285. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1752-1753; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 286. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1731-1736; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol, 4. pp. 1920-1992. 287. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1754-1755; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 288. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1756-1757; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 289. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1758-1759; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 290. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1760-1761, Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 291. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1762-1763, Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 292. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1764-1765; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 293. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1766-1767; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 294. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1763-1769; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 295. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1770-1771; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 296. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1772-1773; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 297. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1774-1775; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 298. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1776-1777; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 299. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1778-1779; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 300. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1689-1695; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 301. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1780-1781; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 302. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1782-1783; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 303. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1784-1785; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 304. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1788-1789; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 305. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1790-1791; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 306. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1696-1703; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 307. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1706-1714; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 308. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1715-1723; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 309. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1786-1787; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 310. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1724-1726; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 311. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1727-1730; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 312. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1792-1793; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 313. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1794-1795; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 314. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1737-1739; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 315. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1796-1797; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 316. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1798-1799; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 317. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1800-1801; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 318. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1802-1803; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 319. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1804-1805; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 320. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1812-1813; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 321. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1806-1807; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 322. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1808-1809; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 323. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1814-1815; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 324. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1810-1811; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 325. Id. , Vol. 3, pp. 1816-1817; Existence admitted by Respondent COC in Comment on FOE; id. , Vol. 4, pp. 1920-1992. 326. Id. , Vol. 1, p. 83. 327. Id. , p. 84. 328. CTA Case No. 7670 BOC Records, p. 18. 329. CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 86-87. 330. CTA Case No. 7670 BOC Records, p. 21. 331. CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, p. 142. 332. CTA Case No. 7670 BOC Records, p. 36. 333. Id. , p. 37. 334. Id. , pp. 38-39. 335. Id. , p. 40. 336. CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, p. 161. 337. CTA Case No. 7670 BOC Records, p. 55. 338. Id. , p. 56. 339. Id. , pp. 58-59. 340. CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, p. 166. 341. Id. , p. 181. 342. Id. , p. 182. 343. CTA Case No. 7670 BOC Records, p. 76. 344. CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 184-185. 345. CTA Case No. 7670 BOC Records, p. 79. 346. CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, p. 199. 347. CTA Case No. 7670 BOC Records, p. 93. 348. Id. , p. 94. 349. CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 202-203. 350. CTA Case No. 7670 BOC Records, p. 97. 351. CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, p. 217. 352. CTA Case No. 7670 BOC Records, p. 111. 353. Id. , p. 112. 354. CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 1, p. 220. 355. CTA Case No. 7670 BOC Records, p. 114. 356. CTA Case No. 7818 BOC Records, p. 13. 357. Id. , p. 14. 358. Id. , p. 15. 359. Id. , pp. 16-17. 360. Id. , p. 18 361. Id. , p. 31. 362. Id. , p. 32. 363. Id. , p. 33. 364. Id. , pp. 34-35. 365. Id. , p. 36. 366. Id. , p. 154. 367. ICPA Exhibits verified by ICPA Dabalos. 368. ICPA Exhibits verified by ICPA Dabalos. 369. ICPA Exhibits, Folder 1. 370. CTA Case No. 7818 Records, p. 170. 371. ICPA Exhibits verified by ICPA Dabalos. 372. ICPA Exhibits verified by ICPA Dabalos. 373. CTA Case No. 7818 Records, p. 173. 374. CTA Case No. 7818 BOC Records, p. 49. 375. Id. , p. 50. 376. Id. , p. 51. 377. Id. , pp. 52-53. 378. Id. , p. 54. 379. Id., p. 67. 380. Id. , p. 68. 381. Id. , p. 69. 382. Id. , p. 70. 383. Id. , p. 71. 384. CTA Case No. 7869 BOC Records, p. 13. 385. Id. , p. 14. 386. Id. , p. 15. 387. Id. , pp. 16-17. 388. Id. , p. 18. 389. Id. , p. 31. 390. Id. , p. 33. 391. Id. , p. 34. 392. Id. , pp. 35-36. 393. Id. , p. 37. 394. Id. , p. 32. 395. CTA Case No. 7869 Records, p. 155. 396. Id. , p. 156. 397. Id. , p. 157. 398. ICPA Exhibits, Folder 1. 399. CTA Case No. 7869 Records, p. 159. 400. CTA Case No. 7869 BOC Records, p. 50. 401. Id. , p. 51. 402. Id. , p. 52. 403. Id. , pp, 53-54. 404. Id. , p. 55. 405. Id. , p. 69. 406. Id. , p. 70. 407. Id. , p. 71. 408. Id. , pp. 72-73. 409. CTA Case No. 7869 BOC Records, p. 74. 410. CTA Case No. 7869 Records, p. 209. 411. CTA Case No. 7954 Records, p. 362. 412. CTA Case No. 7869 BOC Records, p. 14. 413. Id. , p. 15. 414. Id. , pp. 16-17. 415. CTA Case No. 7954 Records, p. 368. 416. CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 3 p. 1541. 417. CTA Case No. 7954 Records, p. 384. 418. Id. , p. 385. 419. CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 3 p. 1540. 420. CTA Case No. 7954 Records, p. 387. 421. CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 3 p. 1556. 422. CTA Case No. 7954 BOC Records, p. 30. 423. CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 3 p. 1559. 424. Id. , p. 1557. 425. Id. , p. 1560. 426. CTA Case No. 7954 BOC Records, p. 43. 427. Id. , p. 44. 428. Id. , p. 45. 429. Id. , pp. 46-47. 430. Id. , p. 48. 431. Id. , p. 60. 432. Id. , p. 61. 433. Id. , p. 62. 434. Id. , pp. 63-64. 435. Id. , p. 65. 436. CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 2, p. 1172. 437. Id. , p. 1173. 438. Id. , p. 1174. 439. Id. , p. 1179. 440. Id. , p. 1177. 441. Id. , p. 1109. 442. Id. , p. 1110. 443. Id. , p. 1111. 444. Id. , pp. 1112-1113. 445. Id. , p. 1114. 446. Id. , p. 1121. 447. Id. , p. 1123. 448. Id. , p. 1124. 449. Id. , pp. 1125-1126. 450. Id. , p. 1127. 451. Id. , p. 1122. 452. Id. , p. 1134. 453. Id. , p. 1135. 454. Id. , p. 1136. 455. Id. , pp. 1197-1138. 456. Id. , p. 1139. 457. Id. , p. 1146. 458. Id. , p. 1147. 459. Id. , p. 1148. 460. Id. , pp. 1149-1150. 461. Id. , p. 1151. 462. G.R. No. 95536, 23 March 1992. 463. G.R. Nos. L-27044 & L-27452, 30 June 1975. 464. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. CIR , CTA EB Case No. 2166, 11 December 2020. 465. CTA EB Case Nos. 1456 & 1458, 18 October 2017. 466. Judicial Affidavit of Mr. Roberto R. Razal, pp. 2 of 10, CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 4, pp. 2192-2216. 467. Emphasis supplied. 468. See ICPA Report; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 4, pp. 2258-2274; Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Arminda T. Acyatan Guerrero, CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 4, pp. 2281-2308. 469. CTA EB Case Nos. 1537 & 1550, 21 May 2018. 470. Exhibit "Y 14 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 3, p. 1830. 471. TSN 6 June 2011; TSN Folder, Vol. 1, pp. 25-28, 46-48; TSN 18 July 2011; TSN Folder, Vol. 2, pp. 24-25, TSN 21 November 2011; TSN Folder, Vol. 2, pp. 11-12. 472. Exhibit "Z 14 "; CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 3, p. 1881. 473. G.R. No. 198759, 1 July 2013. 474. Exhibits "L 9 " to "Y 9 ", CTA Case No. 7670 Records, Vol. 3, pp. 1661-1674. 475. CTA EB Case Nos. 1704 & 1707, 2 May 2019. 476. Emphasis supplied.