Tanduay Distillers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NOS. 9017 & 9035. February 7, 2019.] TANDUAY DISTILLERS, INC. , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . DECISION MANAHAN , J p : This is a consolidation of two (2) Petitions for Review filed by petitioner Tanduay Distillers, Inc. on March 26, 2015 and April 30, 2015, docketed as CTA Case Nos. 9017 1 and 9035, 2 seeking a tax refund or credit in the aggregate amount of P1,011,896,050.42, allegedly representing erroneously paid excise tax on removals of compounded liquor using tax-paid raw materials for the periods covering March to April 2013 and May to July 2013, broken down as follows: CAIHTE CTA Case No. Period Covered Amount 9017 March 2013 to April 2013 P340,826,261.32 9035 May 2013 to July 2013 671,069,789.10 TOTAL P1,011,896,050.42 THE PARTIES Petitioner Tanduay Distillers, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws with business address at No. 348 J. Nepumoceno St., San Miguel District, Manila. 3 It is primarily engaged in the business of manufacturing, compounding bottling, importing, exporting, buying or selling or otherwise dealing in, wholesale and retail such goods as rhum, spirit, beverage, liquor and other liquor products. 4 On the other hand, respondent is the duly appointed Commissioner of Internal Revenue who holds office at the BIR National Office Building, Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City. 5 aScITE THE FACTS On December 19, 2012, Republic Act (RA) No. 10351 6 was enacted by Congress restructuring the excise tax on alcohol and tobacco products by amending pertinent sections of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), effective January 1, 2013. The new statute provided for tax rates and tax bases for alcohol and tobacco products. Under the new law, the tax on distilled products are as follows: " Section 141 . Distilled Spirits . On distilled spirits, subject to the provisions of Section 133 of this Code, an excise tax shall be levied, assessed and collected based on the following schedules: (a) Effective on January 1, 2013 (1) An ad valorem tax equivalent to fifteen percent (15%) of the net retail price (excluding the excise tax and the value-added tax) per proof; and DETACa (2) In addition to the ad valorem tax herein imposed, a specific tax of Twenty pesos [P20.00] per proof liter. (b) Effective on January 1, 2015 (1) An ad valorem tax equivalent to twenty percent (20%) of the net retail price (excluding the excise tax and the value-added tax) per proof; and (2) In addition to the ad valorem tax herein imposed, a specific tax of Twenty pesos (P20.00) per proof liter. (c) In addition to the ad valorem tax herein imposed, the specific tax rate of Twenty pesos (P20.00) imposed under this Section shall be increased by four percent (4%) every year thereafter effective on January 1, 2016, through revenue regulations issued by the Secretary of Finance." On December 21, 2012, the Secretary of Finance issued Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 17-2012 7 to implement the provisions of RA No. 10351. In item (c) of the transitory provisions of RR No. 17-2012, it disallowed the tax crediting of the excise taxes paid under the old law on the raw materials inventory by the end of the year 2012 or by the effectivity of RA No. 10351, against excise taxes due on the compounded liquor. Starting January 1, 2013, petitioner paid excise taxes, in accordance with the new statute, on the withdrawals of its compounded liquor presented in detail in the attached Summary of Removals of Compounded Liquor produced from the tax paid raw materials. HEITAD Thereafter respondent issued on January 8, 2013, Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 3-2013, 8 which sought to clarify further, certain provisions of RR No. 17-2012. It extended the imposition of the excise tax on ethyl alcohol either as (a) raw materials in the production of compounded liquor and, (b) the manufactured finished product. Under RMC No. 3-2013, both ethyl alcohol and compounded liquor are considered distinct distilled spirit products and are thus separate taxable items under the new law. This interpretation of the law was however modified with the issuance of RMC No. 18-2013 9 which allowed the non-payment of excise tax on ethyl alcohol that were purchased after the issuance of RMC No. 3-2013 provided that they be used as raw materials in the manufacture of compounded liquors and provided still that certain requirements such as posting of surety bonds are complied. However, the RMC still maintained that taxes previously paid on the raw materials ( i.e. , ethyl alcohol/ethanol inventory at the time of the effectivity of the new excise tax law) are still not subject to refund/credit to the manufacturers. On March 11, 2013, petitioner wrote to the BIR requesting to amend RMC 18-2013 to remove the provision on non-recoverability of excise taxes previously paid on the raw materials. 10 aDSIHc On April 2, 2013, the BIR responded that the said provision in RMC 3-2013 is consistent with the transitory provisions in RR 17-2012 and denied petitioner's request. 11 On October 31, 2013, 12 petitioner wrote to the Department of Finance (DOF) requesting for the amendment of RR 17-2012, which was denied by the DOF on January 30, 2014. 13 On February 26, 2014, 14 petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the DOF which was also denied by the latter on July 21, 2014. 15 On March 12, 2015, 16 petitioner filed administrative requests for refund of excise taxes paid on the finished goods produced from the tax-paid raw materials for the months of March and April 2013, in the amount of P340,826,261.32 and for the months of May to July 2013 in the amount of P671,069,789.10. Thereafter, petitioner filed with this Court the instant Petitions for Review on March 26, 2015 and April 30, 2015, docketed as CTA Case Nos. 9017 17 and 9035, 18 respectively. On June 22, 2015, within the extended period granted by the Court, 19 respondent filed through registered mail his Answer 20 in CTA Case No. 9017, interposing the following Special and Affirmative Defenses: " SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES On the basis of the foregoing allegations and in further support of the Specific Denials herein set forth, respondent respectfully alleges as her defense that: The claim for refund was filed out of time as required by Sec. 204 (c) 4. Petitioner alleged that it paid its excise taxes on 1 January 2013 and that it filed a claim for refund only on 12 March 2015. 5. Sec. 204 (c) provides that: "(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." TIADCc 6. Clearly, petitioner is no longer entitled to a claim for refund for failure to file its claim within two (2) years from the date it became due. Otherwise stated, petitioner should have filed its claim for refund on or before 1 January 2015. As petitioner was only able to file its claim on 12 March 2015, clearly it is no longer entitled to the same. The petition lacks cause of action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and must be dismissed outright 7. The Honorable Supreme Court, in a long line of cases has consistently held that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction then such remedy should be exhausted first before court's judicial power can be sought. The premature invocation of a court's intervention is fatal to one's cause of action. 8. Petitioner alleged in its petition that it wrote a letter to the Department of Finance requesting for the amendment of RR 17-2012 and that said letter was denied by the DOF on 30 January 2014. 9. It was further alleged by petitioner that it filed a motion for reconsideration of the said denial by the DOF on 26 February 2014 and that the same was again denied by the latter on 23 July 2014. 10. Petitioner now comes into this Honorable Court with a prayer to declare Section 12(c) of Revenue Regulations No. 17-2012 and other allied issuances as unauthorized administrative legislation. cSEDTC 11. As can be seen from above, petitioner failed to appeal the denial of the DOF to the Office of the President. The Office of the President exercises direct control and supervision over all other executive departments, the DOF and BIR included. 12. Observance of the mandate regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies is a sound practice and policy. It ensures an orderly procedure which favors a preliminary sifting process, particularly with respect to matters peculiarly within the competence of the administrative agency, avoidance of interference with functions of the administrative agency by withholding judicial action until the administrative process had run its course, and prevention of attempts to swamp the courts by a resort to them in the first instance. The underlying principle of the rule rests on the presumption that the administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter, will decide the same correctly. There are both legal and practical reasons for this principle. The administrative process is intended to provide less expensive and more speedy solutions to disputes. Where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for administrative review, and provides a system of administrative appeal, or reconsideration, the courts, for reasons of law, comity and convenience, will not entertain a case unless the available administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been given an opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the administrative forum. AIDSTE 13. The instant case must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies when petitioner failed to appeal the decision of the DOF to the Office of the President. 14. Assuming that this Honorable Court has jurisdiction over the same, respondent submits that the instant petition must still fall, as will be discussed. Section 12 (c) of RR No. 17-2012 is valid and constitutional 15. Respondent respectfully submits that RR 17-2012 is valid and constitutional. 16. It must be remembered that the Department of Finance (DOF) is the agency with the mandate of formulation, institutionalization and administration of fiscal policies in coordination with other concerned subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities of the government; generation and management of the financial resources of government; and supervision of the revenue operations of all local government units. It is the approving authority of proposed regulations of the BIR. SDAaTC 17. The BIR, on the other hand, is a bureau under the DOF mandated by law to assess and collect all national internal revenue taxes, fees and charges, and to enforce all forfeitures, penalties and fines connected therewith, including the execution of judgments in all cases decided in its favor by the Court of Tax Appeals and the ordinary courts. To enable it to fulfill this mandate, it is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations to interpret and implement laws pertaining to internal revenue. 18. With regard to the issuance of the DOF and respondent, absent any clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that they are acting within their authority and with regularity in the performance of their duties. It enjoys the presumption of regularity which must be overcome by clear and convincing evidence from the petitioners. 19. Also, RR 17-2012 only seeks to implement a valid legislation, RA 10351 which was issued by Congress. RR 17-2012 is also merely an interpretative ruling, as it adds nothing new aside from what was already stated in RA 10351. AaCTcI 20. Also there is no double taxation because the first excise tax is paid on a different finished product ( i.e. , ethyl alcohol) and the second excise tax is paid on another different finished product ( i.e. , liquor). Double taxation is present only when the same thing is taxed twice, such is not present in the instant case. It is incumbent upon petitioner to prove that it is entitled to the refund sought because a claim for refund is not ipso facto granted upon filing of the claim . 21. As a matter of course, a claim for refund is subject to investigation as it involves removal of accrued revenue from the coffers of the Government. It has been held by the Supreme Court that a claim for refund is not ipso facto granted because the Commissioner of Internal Revenue still has to investigate and ascertain the veracity of the claim. 22. Respondent submits that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the amount of P340,826,261.32 which is the subject of the case at bar was erroneously or illegally collected. Taxes remitted to the BIR are presumed to have been made in the regular course of business and in accordance with provisions of law. 23. In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund or tax credit, or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the application within the period prescribed above, the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the one-hundred-twenty-day period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals. acEHCD 24. Clearly, the law requires the submission of complete documents in support of the application filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue before the 120-day audit period shall apply, and before the taxpayer could avail of judicial remedies as provided for in the law , petitioner's failure to comply with the duly mandated legal requirements in such claims for refund/tax credit warranted the denial by inaction of the administrative claim. 25. In case such as this, before judicial inquiry into the issue of whether taxpayers, in general, are entitled to a refund/tax credit under substantive law may be considered, they have an initial burden to discharge. They must prove that they complied with all the administrative requirements continuing up to judicial review. In other words, before trial de novo proceeds and disposes of the issue of refund entitlement under substantive law, it must first be proved that there was procedural compliance in pursuing the administrative claim leading to the appellate proceedings. As stated by the Honorable Supreme Court: EcTCAD "Petitioner's contention that non-compliance with Revenue Regulations 3-88 could not have adversely affected its case in the CTA indicates a failure on its part to appreciate the nature of the proceedings in that court. First a judicial claim for refund or tax credit in the CTA is by no means an original action but rather an appeal by way of petition for review of a previous, unsuccessful administrative claim. Therefore, as in every appeal or petition for review, a petitioner has to convince the appellate court that the quasi-judicial agency a quo did not have any reason to deny its claims. In this case, it was necessary for petitioner to show the CTA not only that it was entitled under substantive law to the grant of its claims but also that it satisfied all the documentary and evidentiary requirements for an administrative claim for refund or tax credit . Second, cases filed in the CTA are litigated de novo . Thus, a petitioner should prove every minute aspect of its case by presenting, formally offering and submitting its evidence to the CTA. Since it is crucial for a petitioner in a judicial claim for refund or tax credit to show that its administrative claim should have been granted in the first place, part of the evidence to be submitted to the CTA must necessarily include whatever is required for the successful prosecution of an administrative claim ." (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) 26. Petitioner failed to substantiate its claim for refund/issuance of tax credit certificate in the amount of P340,826,261.32 representing alleged erroneously paid excise taxes for the period of March and April 2013. SDHTEC 27. In the case entitled Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Rosemarie Acosta , the Supreme Court had the occasion to say: "x x x Noteworthy, the requirements under Section 230 (now Section 204) for refund claims are as follows: 1. A written claim for refund or tax credit must be filed by the taxpayer with the Commissioner; 2. The claim for refund must be a categorical demand for reimbursement; 3. The claim for refund or tax credit must be filed, or the suit or proceeding therefor must be commenced in court within two (2) years from date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause . In our view, the law is clear. A claimant must first file a written claim for refund, categorically demanding recovery of overpaid taxes with the CIR, before resorting to an action in court. This obviously is intended, first, to afford the CIR an opportunity to correct the action of subordinate officers ; and second, to notify the government that such taxes have been questioned, and the notice should then be borne in mind in estimating the revenue available for expenditure x x x." (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) HSAcaE 28. In the present case, petitioner failed to submit all the necessary documents needed for the application of its refund. 29. The purpose of requiring the filing of the administrative claim for refund/tax credit and submission of supporting documents relevant to a claim for tax refund/credit is to give the administrative agency concerned the opportunity to ascertain the veracity and validity of the claim. This is the very essence, the very substance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The doctrine rests upon the presumption that the administrative body, board, or officer, if given the chance to correct its mistake or error, may amend its decision on a given matter and decide it properly. Thus, noncompliance with a condition precedent renders the Petition for Review dismissible. 30. The failure of petitioner to substantiate its claim for refund before the office of the respondent and the filing of the instant petition before this Honorable Court deprived respondent of the opportunity to fully exercise her function to decide claims for refund, correct, modify or affirm the findings of her subordinates. It must be remembered, that in the case of Jariol vs. Commission on Elections , the Supreme Court reasoned that a party must not merely initiate the prescribed administrative procedure to obtain relief, the party concerned must pursue this relief until the appropriate conclusion takes place before seeking judicial intervention in order to give the administrative body an opportunity to decide the matter by itself correctly and prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the court. AScHCD 31. The power to tax is the most effective instrument to raise needed revenues to finance and support the myriad activities of the government for the delivery of basic services essential to the promotion of the general welfare and enhancement of peace, progress and prosperity of the people. Consequently, any delay in implementing tax measures would be to the detriment of the public. It is for this reason that claims for refund are required to be done within certain time frames. 32. Exemptions from taxation are highly disfavored in law and he who claims exemption must be able to justify his claim by the clearest grant of organic or statutory law. An exemption from the common burden cannot be permitted to exist upon vague implications (Asiatic Petroleum Co. vs. Llanes, 49 Phil. 466 cited in Collector of Internal Revenue v. Manila Jockey Club, Inc., 98 Phil. 670) . HESIcT 33. In an action for refund, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to establish its right to refund, and failure to sustain the burden is fatal to the claim for refund. Hence, a taxpayer is charged with the heavy burden of proving that he has complied with and satisfied all the statutory and administrative requirements to be entitled to the tax refund. Failure to comply therewith warrants a dismissal of the taxpayer's claim for refund. Respondent humbly submits that petitioner failed to establish its right to refund. 34. It can never be emphasized enough that in this jurisdiction tax refunds/credits are in the nature of tax exemptions, hence, laws relating to them call for a strict application against the claimant. As held by the Honorable Supreme Court: "Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions, and are to be construed strictissimi juris against the entity claiming the same. Thus, the burden of proof rests upon the taxpayer to establish by sufficient and competent evidence, its entitlement to a claim for refund." 35. Taxes collected are presumed to be in accordance with laws and regulations. AcICHD 36. Claims for refund are construed strictly against the claimant for the same partake of the nature of exemption from taxation (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Ledesma, 31 SCRA 95) and as such, they are looked upon with disfavor (Western Minolco Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 124 SCRA 1211) . Basic is the rule that tax refunds are regarded as tax exemptions that are in derogation of the sovereign authority and are to be construed in strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the exemption (Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 141973, June 28, 2005) . The law does not look with favor on tax exemptions and that he who would seek to be thus privileged must justify it by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted (Sea-Land Service vs. Court of Appeals, 357 SCRA 444) . 37. Based on the foregoing, petitioner's claim for refund has no basis in fact and in law. Thus, the instant petition should be denied for lack of merit." Meanwhile, for CTA Case No. 9035, well within the extended period 21 granted by the Court, respondent filed his Answer (Re: Petition for Review dated 30 April 2015) 22 through registered mail on July 29, 2015, and was received by this Court on August 10, 2015. He alleged the same special and affirmative defenses he raised in his Answer in CTA Case No. 9017, except for the defense that the claim for refund was filed out of time as required by Sec. 204 (c) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. caITAC The Pre-Trial Conference for CTA Case No. 9017 was set on August 6, 2015, 23 while the Pre-Trial Conference for CTA Case No. 9035 was set on September 17, 2015. 24 The Pre-Trial Brief for the Petitioner 25 and the Respondent's Consolidated Pre-Trial Brief 26 in CTA Case No. 9017 were both filed on July 31, 2015. On August 26, 2015, the parties filed their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues 27 for CTA Case No. 9017. This was approved and adopted by the Court in the Pre-Trial Order 28 issued on September 17, 2015. Meanwhile, the Respondent's Pre-Trial Brief 29 for CTA Case No. 9035 was filed on September 11, 2015, while the Pre-Trial Brief for the Petitioner 30 was submitted on September 14, 2015. On September 21, 2015, petitioner filed a Motion for Consolidation 31 of CTA Case No. 9035 with CTA Case No. 9017. This was granted by the Court in the Resolution 32 dated September 23, 2015. Thereafter, the parties submitted their Consolidated Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues 33 on October 6, 2015. This was approved and adopted by the Court in the Pre-Trial Order 34 issued on October 12, 2015. TAIaHE Upon motion 35 of petitioner, the Court commissioned Mr. Elrey T. Ramos as the Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA) for the case. 36 During trial, petitioner presented the following witnesses: Mr. Jaime Bernardo Silva, 37 its Tax Officer; Mr. Amadeo G. Guevarra, 38 its Cost Accountant; and Mr. Elrey T. Ramos, 39 the Court-commissioned ICPA. Petitioner's Formal Offer of Evidence 40 was filed on March 10, 2016. This was resolved by the Court in the Resolution 41 dated May 6, 2016, and petitioner's Exhibits "P-1", "P-5", "P-6", "P-7", "P-8", "P-9", "P-10", "P-11", "P-11-a", "P-11-b", "P-11-c", "P-11-d", "P-11-e", "P-11-f", "P-11-g", "P-11-h", "P-11-i", "P-11-j", "P-11-k", "P-11-l", "P-11-m", "P-11-n", "P-11-o", "P-11-p", "P-11-q", "P-11-r", "P-11-s", "P-11-t", "P-11-u", "P-11-v", "P-11-w", "P-11-x", "P-11-y", "P-11-z", "P-11-aa", "P-11-bb", "P-11-cc-1" to "P-11-cc-4", "P-11-dd-1" to "P-11-dd-4", "P-31", "P-31-a", "P-32", "P-32-a", "P-33", "P-33-a", "P-34", "P-34-a", "P-2", "P-2-a", "P-2-c", "P-2-f", "P-2-j", "P-2-m", "P-2-n", "P-2-q", "P-2-r", "P-2-d", "P-2-e-1", and "P-2-e-2", "P-2-e-3", "P-2-g", "P-2-h", "P-2-i", "P-2-k" and "P-2-1", "P-2-o-1" and "P-2-o-2", "P-2-s-1" and "P-2-s-2", "P-2-t-1" and "P-2-t-2", "P-2-u", "P-2-v", "P-2-w", "P-2-x", "P-2-y", "P-2-z", "P-2-aa", "P-2-bb", "P-2-dd", "P-2-ee", "P-20", "P-30", "P-30-a-1", "P-30-a-2", "P-30-a-3", "P-30-a-4", "P-30-b-1", "P-30-b-2", "P-30-b-3", "P-30-b-4", "P-30-c-1", "P-30-c-2", "P-30-c-3", "P-30-d-1", "P-30-d-2", "P-30-d-3", "P-30-d-4", "P-30-e-1", "P-30-e-2", "P-30-e-3", "P-30-e-4", "P-30-f-1", "P-30-f-2", "P-30-f-3", "P-30-f-4", "P-30-g-1", "P-30-g-2", "P-30-g-3", "P-30-g-4", "P-30-h-1", "P-30-h-2", "P-30-h-3", "P-30-h-4", "P-30-i-1", "P-30-i-2", "P-30-i-3", and "P-30-i-4", were admitted into evidence. However, the Court denied the admission of Exhibits "P-33-b", "P-33-c", and "P-33-d", on the ground that the duly marked exhibits cannot be found in the records of the case; while Exhibit "P-2-c" was likewise denied for failure of the said exhibit formally offered to correspond with the document actually marked. ICHDca Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution Promulgated on May 6, 2016 with Request to Amend the Formal Offer of Evidence) 42 on May 16, 2016 praying for the admission of its denied exhibits. In the Resolution 43 dated August 2, 2016, the Court partially granted petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and admitted Exhibit "P-2-b". However, Exhibits "P-33-b", "P-33-c", and "P-33-d", were still denied admission on the ground that the duly marked exhibits cannot be found in the records of the case. On August 8, 2016, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion for Leave (a) To Withdraw and Mark the Annexes to ICPA Report and (b) To Recall the ICPA as Witness and (c) To Defer the Submission of the Amended Formal Offer of Evidence. 44 This was granted by the Court in the Resolution 45 dated October 20, 2016. The Supplemental Formal Offer of Evidence w/ Amendment and Manifestation pursuant to October 20, 2016 Resolution 46 was filed on December 12, 2016. This was resolved by the Court in the Resolution 47 dated July 17, 2017 admitting most of petitioner's exhibits. However, some of petitioner's exhibits were denied admission for not having been found in the records of the case; and for failure of the exhibits formally offered to correspond with the documents actually marked. Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Resolution dated July 17, 2017 48 for the admission of its denied exhibits. cDHAES In the Resolution 49 dated September 22, 2017, the Court granted petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration and admitted petitioner's exhibits denied admission in the Resolution dated July 17, 2017 for failure of the exhibits formally offered to correspond with the documents actually marked. Thereafter, respondent presented as his witness Revenue Officer Evangeline M. Casipe. 50 During the hearing on November 27, 2017, the presentation of respondent's last witness was dispensed with after the counsels of the parties stipulated that the denial of the claim for refund was based purely on legal issues. 51 The respondent's Memorandum 52 was filed on December 21, 2017; while the Memorandum for the Petitioner 53 was filed on February 5, 2018. Thus, in the Resolution 54 dated February 12, 2018, the instant Petitions for Review were submitted for decision. ISSUE The parties stipulated the following issue 55 for this Court's disposition: "WHETHER PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO THE REFUND OF EXCISE TAXES PAID ON FINISHED GOODS PRODUCED FROM TAX-PAID RAW MATERIALS, IN THE AMOUNTS OF: TCAScE 1) P340,826,261.32 FOR THE MONTHS OF MARCH TO APRIL CALENDAR YEAR 2013; AND 2) P671,069,789.10 FOR THE MONTHS OF MAY, JUNE AND JULY CALENDAR YEAR 2013." Petitioner's Arguments Petitioner argues that it is entitled to the refund of excise taxes paid on finished goods produced from tax-paid raw materials, in the amount of P1,011,896,050.42, considering that Section 12 (C) of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 17-2012 is an unauthorized administrative legislation resulting to depriving distillers such as petitioner of claiming refund of tax. It submits that Section 170 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, contains a proviso stating that where a rectifier makes use of spirits upon which the excise tax has been paid, no further tax shall be collected on any rectified spirits produced exclusively therefrom. Petitioner claims that the finished goods from which excise taxes were paid under the new law were produced from tax-paid raw materials. Thus, the Excise Taxes paid on Compounded Liquor produced from tax-paid raw materials violates Section 170 of the NIRC despite the fact that the latter was not amended by RA No. 10351. ASEcHI Moreover, petitioner submits that Revenue Regulations No. 17-2012, runs counter to the express provision of Section 170; thus, denying the tax credit/refund of excise tax already paid on ethyl alcohol, or deduction from the total excise tax due on compounded liquors. Thus, it argues that these administrative issuances serve not just to carry out the provisions of R.A. 10351 but also serve to amend the NIRC by disregarding the application of Section 170 thereof. Petitioner also contends that RA No. 10351 does not impose taxes on raw materials of distilled spirits. It alleges that the authors of the new statute intended for the tax to be imposed on the compounded liquor with increased rates. It avers that the clear intent of the framers of the statute is merely to shift the imposition of the excise tax on the finished goods and no longer on its raw materials. Likewise, petitioner argues that considering it paid tax on its compounded liquors produced from tax paid raw materials, there is double taxation. It contends that once the excise tax on raw materials have been paid as part of its components, there should not be further tax on such finished goods. Furthermore, petitioner alleges that the excise tax paid pursuant to the implementing rules issued by the respondent should be considered as erroneous payment and hence recoverable under the principle of Solutio Indebiti for no one, not even the State, should enrich itself at the expense of another. cTDaEH Lastly, petitioner argues that the imposition of excise taxes on both raw materials and compounded liquor on distillers with separate facilities violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Respondent's Counter-Arguments Respondent counter-argues that petitioner's claim for refund was filed out of time as required by Sec. 204 (C) of the NIRC of 1997. Moreover, respondent contends that the petition fails to state a cause of action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and must be dismissed outright. Furthermore, respondent argues that there is no double taxation because the first excise tax is paid on a different finished product ( i.e. , ethyl alcohol) and the second excise tax is paid on another different finished product ( i.e. , liquor). Respondent also contends that it is incumbent upon petitioner to prove that it is entitled to the refund sought because a claim for refund is not ipso facto granted upon filing of the claim. Finally, respondent maintains that petitioner is not entitled to the refund of the alleged payment of excise taxes in the aggregate amount of P340,826,261.32 for the period of March and April 2013 and the alleged payment of excise taxes in the aggregate amount of P671,069,789.10 for the period of May to July 2013. The alleged payments were neither erroneous nor illegal. ITAaHc RULING OF THE COURT Petitioner is entitled to file a claim for refund of excise taxes paid on finished goods produced from tax-paid raw materials. Petitioner claims that it is entitled to the refund of excise taxes paid on finished goods produced from tax-paid raw materials, considering that Section 12 (C) of RR No. 17-2012 is an unauthorized administrative legislation. The Court agrees with petitioner. Republic Act (RA) No. 10351, 56 enacted by Congress on December 19, 2012, restructured the excise tax on alcohol and tobacco products by amending pertinent sections of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Pertinent to this case is Section 141 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, which reads as follows: cSaATC " Section 141 . Distilled Spirits . On distilled spirits, subject to the provisions of Section 133 of this Code, an excise tax shall be levied, assessed and collected based on the following schedules: (a) Effective on January 1, 2013 (1) An ad valorem tax equivalent to fifteen percent (15%) of the net retail price (excluding the excise tax and the value-added tax) per proof; and (2) In addition to the ad valorem tax herein imposed, a specific tax of Twenty pesos (P20.00) per proof liter. (b) Effective on January 1, 2015 (1) An ad valorem tax equivalent to twenty percent (20%) of the net retail price (excluding the excise tax and the value-added tax) per proof; and (2) In addition to the ad valorem tax herein imposed, a specific tax of Twenty pesos (P20.00) per proof liter. (c) In addition to the ad valorem tax herein imposed, the specific tax rate of Twenty pesos (P20.00) imposed under this Section shall be increased by four percent (4%) every year thereafter effective on January 1, 2016, through revenue regulations issued by the Secretary of Finance. Medicinal preparations, flavoring extracts, and all other preparations, except toilet preparations, of which, excluding water, distilled spirits form the chief ingredient, shall be subject to the same tax as such chief ingredient. This tax shall be proportionally increased for any strength of the spirits taxed over proof spirits, and the tax shall attach to this substance as soon as it is in existence as such, whether it be subsequently separated as pure or impure spirits, or transformed into any other substance either in the process of original production or by any subsequent process. CHTAIc 'Spirits or distilled spirits' is the substance known as ethyl alcohol, ethanol or spirits of wine, including all dilutions, purifications and mixtures thereof, from whatever source, by whatever process produced, and shall include whisky, brandy, rum, gin and vodka, and other similar products or mixtures. 'Proof spirits' is liquor containing one-half (1/2) of its volume of alcohol of a specific gravity of seven thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine ten thousandths (0.7939) at fifteen degrees centigrade (15C). A 'proof liter' means a liter of proof spirits. 'Net retail price' shall mean the price at which the distilled spirits is sold on retail in at least five (5) major supermarkets in Metro Manila, excluding the amount intended to cover the applicable excise tax and the value-added tax. For distilled spirits which are marketed outside Metro Manila, the 'net retail price' shall mean the price at which the distilled spirits is sold in at least five (5) major supermarkets in the region excluding the amount intended to cover the applicable excise tax and the value-added tax. cHDAIS Major supermarkets, as contemplated under this Act, shall be those with the highest annual gross sales in Metro Manila or the region, as the case may be, as determined by the National Statistics Office, and shall exclude retail outlets or kiosks, convenience or sari-sari stores, and others of a similar nature: Provided, That no two (2) supermarkets in the list to be surveyed are affiliated and/or branches of each other: Provided, finally, That in case a particular distilled spirit is not sold in major supermarkets, the price survey can be conducted in retail outlets where said distilled spirit is sold in Metro Manila or the region, as the case may be, upon the determination of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The net retail price shall be determined by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) through a price survey under oath. The methodology and all pertinent documents used in the conduct of the latest price survey shall be submitted to the Congressional Oversight Committee on the Comprehensive Tax Reform Program created under Republic Act No. 8240. Understatement of the suggested net retail price by as much as fifteen percent (15%) of the actual net retail price shall render the manufacturer or importer liable for additional excise tax equivalent to the tax due and difference between the understated suggested net retail price and the actual net retail price. Distilled spirits introduced in the domestic market after the effectivity of this Act shall be initially taxed according to their suggested net retail prices. EATCcI 'Suggested net retail price' shall mean the net retail price at which locally manufactured or imported distilled spirits are intended by the manufacturer or importer to be sold on retail in major supermarkets or retail outlets in Metro Manila for those marketed nationwide, and in other regions, for those with regional markets. At the end of three (3) months from the product launch, the Bureau of Internal Revenue shall validate the suggested net retail price of the new brand against the net retail price as defined herein and initially determine the correct tax on a newly introduced distilled spirits. After the end of nine (9) months from such validation, the Bureau of Internal Revenue shall revalidate the initially validated net retail price against the net retail price as of the time of revalidation in order to finally determine the correct tax on a newly introduced distilled spirits. All distilled spirits existing in the market at the time of the effectivity of this Act shall be taxed according to the tax rates provided above based on the latest price survey of the distilled spirits conducted by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The methodology and all pertinent documents used in the conduct of the latest price survey shall be submitted to the Congressional Oversight Committee on the Comprehensive Tax Reform Program created under Republic Act No. 8240. ISHCcT Manufacturers and importers of distilled spirits shall, within thirty (30) days from the effectivity of this Act, and within the first five (5) days of every third month thereafter, submit to the Commissioner a sworn statement of the volume of sales for each particular brand of distilled spirits sold at his establishment for the three-month period immediately preceding. Any manufacturer or importer who, in violation of this Section, misdeclares or misrepresents in his or its sworn statement herein required any pertinent data or information shall, upon final findings by the Commissioner that the violation was committed, be penalized by a summary cancellation or withdrawal of his or its permit to engage in business as manufacturer or importer of distilled spirits. Any corporation, association or partnership liable for any of the acts or omissions in violation of this Section shall be fined treble the amount of deficiency taxes, surcharges and interest which may be assessed pursuant to this Section. Any person liable for any of the acts or omissions prohibited under this Section shall be criminally liable and penalized under Section 254 of this Code. Any person who willfully aids or abets in the commission of any such act or omission shall be criminally liable in the same manner as the principal. If the offender is not a citizen of the Philippines, he shall be deported immediately after serving the sentence, without further proceedings for deportation." DHITCc This amendment changed the previous tax treatment of distilled spirits by removing the tax classification system ( i.e. , raw material and net price) upon which the specific tax was paid, into a system where all distilled spirits (from whatever source or raw material) would be subject to a specific tax per proof liter and ad valorem tax on the net retail price per proof. Instead of the excise tax being paid on the raw materials, it is now imposed upon the finished goods upon removal from the place of production. To implement the provisions of the above statute, the Secretary of Finance issued Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 17-2012 57 which was published on December 28, 2012. The pertinent provision of this issuance is Section 12 (c) which disallowed the tax crediting of the excise taxes paid under the old law on the raw materials inventory by the end of the year 2012, against excise taxes due on the compounded liquor, to wit: " SEC. 12. TRANSITORY PROVISIONS . Upon the effectivity of the Act, the following transitory provisions shall be strictly observed by all concerned: CAacTH (c) The specific tax that was paid on the physical inventory of ethyl alcohol held in possession by manufacturers of compounded liquors as of the effectivity of the Act subsequently used as raw materials in the production of compounded liquors shall not be entitled to tax credit/refund or shall not be deducted from the total excise tax due on compounded liquors." Thereafter, respondent issued RMC No. 3-2013, which clarified that both ethyl alcohol and compounded liquor are considered distinct distilled spirit products and are thus separate taxable items under the new law, to wit: "2. Taxability of distilled spirits under Section 3 of R.R. No. 17-2012. Section 141 of the Tax Code of 1997, as amended, defined "Spirits or distilled spirits," for purposes of excise taxation, is the substance known as ethyl alcohol, ethanol or spirits of wine, including all dilutions, purifications and mixtures thereof, from whatever source, by whatever process produced, and shall include whisky, brandy, rum, gin and vodka, and other similar products or mixtures. In line with the aforesaid definition of distilled spirits, all end-products, such as ethyl alcohol, ethanol or other similar products or mixtures are separate and distinct distilled spirits apart from the above-enumerated alcoholic products ( i.e. , whisky, brandy, rum, etc.) and therefore, the same should be likewise subjected to the imposition of a separate and distinct excise tax prescribed under the same Section of the Tax Code." However, respondent then issued RMC No. 18-2013 58 which allowed the non-payment of excise tax on ethyl alcohol that were purchased after the issuance of RMC No. 3-2013 provided that they be used as raw materials in the manufacture of compounded liquors and provided still that certain requirements such as posting of surety bonds are complied, to wit: "This Circular is hereby issued to amend Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 3-2013 in so far as ethyl alcohol is concerned. For this purpose, the importation of ethyl alcohol or ethanol intended for re-sale or for the manufacture of compounded liquors shall be subject to excise tax unless the importer thereof is a holder of a Permit to Operate as importer of ethyl alcohol or ethanol or as manufacturer of compounded liquors as the case may be, duly issued by this Bureau and has posted a surety bond, in addition to the importer's bond prescribed under Section 160 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended. xxx xxx xxx The excise tax that has already been paid on ethyl alcohol or ethanol pursuant to RMC No. 3-2013 shall not be entitled to tax credit/refund or shall not be deducted from the total excise tax due on compounded liquors." Nevertheless, RMC No. 18-2013 still maintained that taxes previously paid on the raw materials ( i.e. , ethyl alcohol/ethanol inventory at the time of the effectivity of the new excise tax law) are still not subject to refund/credit to the manufacturers. CTIEac At the outset, the Court reaffirms the time-honored doctrine that, the law prevails over the administrative regulations implementing it. The authority to promulgate implementing rules proceeds from the law itself. To be valid, a rule or regulation must conform to and be consistent with the provisions of the enabling statute. As such, it cannot amend the law either by abridging or expanding its scope. 59 In the implementation of statutes, the will and intention of its authors must be determined. Legislative intent is part and parcel of the law, the controlling factor in interpreting a statute. In construing a statute, the proper course is to start out and follow the true intent of the legislature and to adopt the sense that best harmonizes with the context and promotes in the fullest manner the policy and objects of the legislature. In fact, any interpretation that runs counter to the legislative intent is unacceptable and invalid. 60 Under R.A. No. 10351, the clear legislative intent is that raw materials (such as ethyl alcohol) are not subject to tax since the excise tax on distilled spirits should be on the final product. 61 However, Section 12 (c) of its implementing regulation, RR No. 17-2012, and RMC No. 18-2013 disallowed the tax crediting of the excise taxes paid under the old law on the raw materials ( i.e. , ethyl alcohol/ethanol inventory at the time of the effectivity of the new excise tax law), against excise taxes due on the compounded liquor. This, in effect, subjected petitioner to paying excise tax twice, first on the raw materials and second on the finished products produced. Thus, this part of the transitory provision of RR 17-2012 and RMC No. 18-2013 should be struck down for lack of legal basis. DcHSEa Moreover, petitioner argues that there is double taxation in this case. Respondent, on the other hand, counter-argues that there is no double taxation because the first excise tax is paid on a different finished product ( i.e. , ethyl alcohol) and the second excise tax is paid on another different finished product ( i.e. , liquor). Double taxation means taxing the same property twice when it should be taxed only once; that is, taxing the same person twice by the same jurisdiction for the same thing. It is obnoxious when the taxpayer is taxed twice, when it should be but once. 62 In this case, petitioner was imposed excise tax on ethyl alcohol used as raw material in the production of compounded liquor and was then again imposed excise tax upon removal of the compounded liquor from the place of production. However, it must be noted that the ethyl alcohol taxed in this case, is not a finished product considering that it is used as raw material in the production of compounded liquor. SaCIDT Moreover, to avoid double taxation, the BIR has clarified that ethyl alcohol and ethanol will not be subject to tax upon their importation or removal from place of production, if they will be used as raw materials in the production of compounded liquors. The latter are the ones which are subject to tax. However, the importer must be the manufacturer itself of compounded liquors; or the local seller is a duly registered distillery which directly delivers ethyl alcohol or ethanol to the manufacturer of compounded liquors. In either case, the importer or the distillery must post a surety bond, which is in addition to the manufacturers bond under Section 160 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended. 63 In view of the foregoing, there was double taxation in this case. Lastly, petitioner argues that the compounded liquors produced from the tax-paid raw materials are not subject to the new tax rates prescribed under RA No. 10351. It contends that Section 170 is still prevailing and in full force and effect as it has not been changed, amended or repealed by the new law. Thus, the payments made therein should be considered in light of said Section 170 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, which reads as follows: SCaITA "SEC. 170. Requirements Governing Rectification and Compounding of Liquors . Persons engaged in the rectification or compounding of liquors shall, as to the mode of conducting their business and supervision over the same, be subject to all the requirements of law applicable to distilleries: Provided , That where a rectifier makes use of spirits upon which the excise tax has been paid, no further tax shall be collected on any rectified spirits produced exclusively therefrom: Provided, further , That compounders in the manufacture of any intoxicating beverage whatever, shall not be allowed to make use of spirits upon which the excise tax has not been previously paid." Now, prior to the amendment of Section 141 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, excise taxes were collected upon removal of the raw materials from place of production, and no additional taxes were paid by petitioner upon removal of the compounded liquors produced from such raw materials pursuant to Section 170 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended. When R.A. No. 10351 was implemented, the immediate payment of excise taxes on the removals of the compounded liquor was required. This shift in taxation from raw materials to finished goods introduced in R.A. No. 10351, did not make said Section 170 inoperative. cHECAS Basic is the rule in statutory construction that a provision of a statute should be so construed as not to nullify or render nugatory another provision of the same statute. Thus, to give life to the obvious intendment of the law and to avoid a construction which would render Sec. 170 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, meaningless, these provisions should be interpreted that all finished goods, be it ethyl alcohol, compounded liquor or distilled spirits, etc. are subject to excise tax pursuant to R.A. No. 10351. However, if used as raw materials in the production of compounded liquor, then Section 170 should apply. This interpretation harmonizes the provisions of Section 141, as amended by R.A. No. 10351 and Section 170, both of the NIRC. Thus, ethyl alcohol and ethanol will not be subject to tax upon their importation or removal from place of production, if they will be used as raw materials in the production of compounded liquors. aTHCSE In this case, petitioner has existing tax paid ethanol or ethyl alcohol at the time of the effectivity of R.A. No. 10351, that were used as raw materials in the production of rectified spirits or compounded liquor. Thus, applying Section 170 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, no further tax should have been collected on any rectified spirits or compounded liquor produced exclusively therefrom. Considering the foregoing, petitioner, therefore, has erroneously paid excise tax on the removals of compounded liquor which used tax-paid raw materials for the periods covering March to April 2013 and May to July 2013. Thus, petitioner is entitled to file a claim for refund of excise taxes paid on finished goods produced from these tax-paid raw materials. Timeliness of the filing of the claim The Court finds it proper to determine first whether petitioner's claim for refund was timely filed. Pertinent to the resolution of this matter are Sections 204 (C) and 229 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, which provide for the procedure governing the refund of erroneously paid taxes, to wit: " SEC. 204. Authority of the Commissioner to Compromise, Abate and Refund or Credit Taxes . The Commissioner may AHDacC xxx xxx xxx (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 stamped 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, 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. cAaDHT 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 therefore, 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." The foregoing provisions govern all kinds of refund or credit of internal revenue taxes collected erroneously or illegally, pursuant to the NIRC. 64 Section 204 (C) applies to administrative claims filed with the BIR, while Section 229 refers to judicial actions for the recovery of the tax. In the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Goodyear Philippines, Inc. , 65 the Supreme Court held that Section 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, states that judicial claims for refund must be filed within two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty, providing further that the same may not be maintained until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR). IDSEAH Thus, the settled rule is that both the claim for refund with the BIR and the subsequent appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals must be filed within the two-year period from the date of payment of the tax. 66 In the case of excise taxes, the goods subject to such tax cannot leave the place where it was manufactured without paying the corresponding excise tax. Section 130 (A) (2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, states: SEC. 130. Filing of Return and Payment of Excise Tax on Domestic Products . (A) Persons Liable to File a Return, Filing of Return on Removal and Payment of Tax . xxx xxx xxx (2) Time for Filing of Return and Payment of the Tax . Unless otherwise specifically allowed, the return shall be filed and the excise tax paid by the manufacturer or producer before removal of domestic products from place of production : x x x (Emphasis supplied) Relative thereto, Section 11 of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 02-97, provides that: HCaDIS SECTION 11. Time, Manner and Place of Payment . 11.1 For Locally produced Alcohol Products . 1) FILING OF RETURN Any person liable to pay specific tax on locally produced alcohol products shall before removal of such products, file in triplicate a consolidated return (BIR Form 2200) and supporting attachments (BIR Forms 2201 and 2207) setting forth the registered brand names and brand codes, the total production during the return period, the quantity to be removed and the excise tax due. 2) PAYMENT OF SPECIFIC TAX a) When to Pay Unless otherwise especially allowed, excise tax due locally manufactured or produced alcohol products shall be paid by the manufacturer before removal from the place production, or by the person who is found in possession of untaxed domestically produced alcohol products. aCIHcD b) Advance Payment or Deposit Every person liable to pay specific tax who is authorized to avail of the advance payment scheme may be allowed to effect removals of excisable articles from his place of production without prior filing of the prescribed excise tax return and supporting attachments provided he has sufficient balance of deposits with the BIR to cover full payment of the excise tax due on said removals. The prescribed excise tax return and all attachments may be filed with a duly accredited bank or duly authorized collection agents not later than the first working day of the calendar week immediately after the week of actual removals. Payment of excise tax deposits shall be made by filing in triplicate a Payment Form (BIR Form No. 0605) . (Emphasis supplied) In the instant case, petitioner availed of the advance payment or deposit scheme with regard to the excise taxes due on its locally produced compounded liquor. Thus, as correctly pointed out by petitioner, the two (2)-year period prescribed in Sections 204 and 229 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, should be reckoned from the date of actual withdrawal/removal of the compounded liquor from its place of production, because it is only at this point when the deposits are recognized as payments for excise tax, broken down into ad valorem and specific tax components. Records show that petitioner paid advance excise tax deposits for its compounded liquor products from all of its four (4) plant locations in the aggregate sum of P1,617,083,382.40. The said amount being supported by Excise Tax Returns (BIR Form No. 2200-A), duly filed and paid by petitioner thru the BIR's (Electronic Filing and Payment System) eFPS, is broken down as follows: AHCETa Exhibit No. (BIR Form No. 2200-A) Advance Excise Tax Deposits EFPS Payment Transaction Date Quiapo Plant P-46-1.1 P15,000,000.00 1/23/2013 P-46-1.2 30,000,000.00 2/7/2013 P-46-1.4 7,000,000.00 3/25/2013 P-46-1.5 1,010,000.00 4/3/2013 Subtotal P53,010,000.00 Bacolod Plant P-46-2.1 P25,000,000.00 1/23/2013 P-46-2.2 30,000,000.00 1/29/2013 P-46-2.3 30,000,000.00 2/5/2013 P-46-2.4 30,000,000.00 2/13/2013 P-46-2.5 30,000,000.00 2/25/2013 P-46-2.6 50,000,000.00 3/1/2013 P-46-2.7 70,000,000.00 3/8/2013 P-46-2.8 35,000,000.00 3/21/2013 P-47-1.1 page 24 35,000,000.00 5/17/2013 P-47-1.1 page 36 35,000,000 6/14/2013 P-47-1.2 35,000,000 6/21/2013 P-47-1.5 35,000,000 7/18/2013 P-47-1.6 35,000,000 7/23/2013 P-47-1.7 35,000,000 7/10/2013 Subtotal P510,000,000.00 Cabuyao Plant P-46-3.1 P65,000,000.00 1/23/2013 P-46-3.2 75,000,000.00 2/7/2013 P-46-3.3 50,000,000.00 2/13/2013 P-46-3.4 25,000,000.00 2/13/2013 P-46-3.5 75,000,000.00 2/25/2013 P-46-3.6 75,000,000.00 3/11/2013 P-46-3.7 20,000,000.00 3/22/2013 P-46-3.8 30,000,000.00 4/4/2013 P-47-2.1 25,000,000 5/28/2013 P-47-2.2 30,000,000 6/6/2013 P-47-2.3 30,000,000 6/14/2013 P-47-2.4 50,000,000 6/27/2013 P-47-2.6 40,000,000 7/3/2013 P-47-2.8 40,000,000 7/11/2013 P-47-2.9 40,000,000 7/23/2013 Subtotal P670,000,000.00 Cagayan Plant P-46-4.1 P55,000,000.00 1/23/2013 P-46-4.2 45,000,000.00 2/7/2013 P-46-4.3 18,000,000.00 2/8/2013 P-46-4.4 38,000,000.00 2/13/2013 P-46-4.5 28,000,000.00 3/5/2013 P-46-4.6 30,000,000.00 4/3/2013 P-46-4.7 20,000,000.00 4/17/2013 P-47-3.1 30,000,000 5/28/2013 P-47-3.2 30,000,000 6/14/2013 P-47-3.3 30,000,000 6/27/2013 P-47-3.5 73,382 7/2/2013 P-47-3.6 30,000,000 7/11/2013 P-47-3.7 30,000,000 7/23/2013 Subtotal P384,073,382.40 Total P1,617,083,382.40 On the other hand, as per the Court-commissioned Independent CPA (ICPA)'s verification of petitioner's Excise Taxpayer's Removal Declarations [ETRD] (BIR Form No. 2299), the excise taxes due on the removal of all its compounded liquor products from the four (4) plant locations for the same period amounted to P1,561,782,624.02, summarized as follows: 67 cHaCAS Summary Per Location Plant Location Exhibit Proof Liter Specific Tax (A) Ad Valorem Tax (B) Total Excise Tax (A + B) QUIAPO P-44-1 1,711,761.35 P34,235,227.00 P15,927,434.86 P50,162,661.86 BACOLOD P-44-2 17,793,462.30 355,964,427.48 164,645,390.40 617,375,001.24 CABUYAO P-44-3 20,893,191.96 417,863,839.20 199,318,398.04 373,635,143.04 CAGAYAN P-44-4 12,512,375.04 250,247,500.80 123,387,642.24 520,609,817.88 52,910,790.65 P1,058,310,994.48 P503,278,865.54 P1,561,782,624.02 Summary Per Month Period Proof Liter Specific Tax (A) Ad Valorem Tax (B) Total Excise Tax (A + B) January 7,967,793.49 P159,360,194.12 P74,886,824.06 P234,247,018.18 February 10,819,122.99 216,401,048.16 99,238,507.26 315,639,555.42 March 8,651,613.49 173,044,052.60 82,640,797.10 255,684,849.70 April 2,847,367.02 56,947,726.44 28,193,685.18 85,141,411.62 May 5,336,258.19 106,746,840.24 51,139,523.34 157,886,363.58 June 8,403,473.40 168,088,886.16 81,661,654.38 249,750,540.54 July 8,885,162.07 177,722,246.76 85,710,638.22 263,432,884.98 TOTAL 52,910,790.65 P1,058,310,994.48 P503,471,629.54 P1,561,782,624.02 It should be noted that the advance excise tax deposits of P1,617,083,382.40 are more than enough to cover the excise taxes due of P1,561,782,624.02. After deducting the total excise taxes paid for the months of January and February 2013, we will arrive at the total amount of claim amounting to P1,011,896,050.42 ( i.e. , P1,561,782,624.02 less P234,247,018.18 less P315,639,555.42) covering the periods of March 1, 2013 to April 30, 2013 (CTA Case No. 9017) and May 1, 2013 to July 31, 2013 (CTA Case No. 9035). DACcIH As stated earlier, the two-year prescriptive period shall be counted from the date of actual removal of petitioner's compounded liquor products from place of production. Thus, petitioner had until March 1, 2015 for CTA Case No. 9017 and May 1, 2015 for CTA Case No. 9035, at the earliest, to file its claim for refund both in the administrative and judicial levels. The administrative claims 68 covering both periods of March 1, 2013 to April 30, 2013 (CTA Case No. 9017) and May 1, 2013 to July 31, 2013 (CTA Case No. 9035) were simultaneously filed on March 12, 2015; while the judicial claim for the period of March 1, 2013 to April 30, 2013 (CTA Case No. 9017) 69 was filed on March 26, 2015 and the judicial claim for the period of May 1, 2013 to July 31, 2013 (CTA Case 9035) 70 was filed on April 30, 2015. Therefore, the Court finds that petitioner's claim in CTA Case No. 9035 (for the period of May 1, 2013 to July 31, 2013) was filed on time, whereas that in CTA Case No. 9017 (for the period of March 1, 2013 to April 30, 2013) was belatedly filed as far as the period of March 1, 2013 to March 25, 2013 is concerned. The Court observed that as per petitioner's claim, the total excise tax paid for the month of March 2013 is P255,684,849.70. However, as shown in the table below, the ICPA was only able to account for a total of only P250,556,739.22, representing excise taxes paid for the month of March 2013 with corresponding ETRDs. Particulars Quiapo Bacolod Cabuyao Cagayan Total Excise Tax paid on Finished Goods Removal from March 1-12, 2013 P2,027,575.20 P48,852,820.80 P67,162,564.20 P15,239,132.64 P133,282,092.84 Excise Tax paid on Finished Goods Removal from March 13-31, 2013 17,074,018.48 40,593,250.08 32,312,559.42 27,294,818.40 117,274,646.38 Total Excise tax paid for the month of March 2013 P19,101,593.68 P89,446,070.88 P99,475,123.62 P42,533,951.04 P250,556,739.22 Due to the lack of supporting ETRDs, the Court is unable to ascertain whether the difference of P5,128,110.48 ( i.e. , P255,684,849.70 less P250,556,739.22) belongs to the prescribed or unprescribed portion of the claim, and therefore, said amount shall be disallowed. Since prescription had already set in insofar as the claim for the period of March 1-25, 2013 is concerned (CTA Case No. 9017), petitioner is barred from claiming the excise taxes accounted for by the ICPA for March 1-12, 2013 in the amount of P133,282,092.84. Moreover, the excise taxes of P107,332,334.30 representing the prescribed portion of the claim for the period of March 13, 2013 to March 25, 2013 shall also be disallowed, broken down as follows: aICcHA PLANT LOCATION EXCISE TAX PAID Reference QUIAPO P11,225,203.40 Exhibits P-50 and P-50-1 including sub-markings CABUYAO 31,885,856.82 Exhibits P-51 and P-51-1 including sub-markings BACOLOD 40,547,894.40 Exhibits P-52 and P-52-1 including sub-markings CAGAYAN 23,673,379.68 Exhibits P-53 and P-53-1 including sub-markings TOTAL P107,332,334.30 The details of the ERTDs that comprise the above amounts are summarized as follows: DATE D.R./ ETRD NO. BRAND NO. OF CASES NO. OF BOTTLES SPECIFIC TAX DUE (P20.00 per PL) EXCISE TAX DUE/APPLIED (In PHP) EXHIBIT QUIAPO PLANT 3/13/2013 494433 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-1.1 3/13/2013 494432 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-1.2 3/13/2013 494431 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-1.3 3/14/2013 494438 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 960 11520 12.79 147,340.80 P-50-1-2.1 3/14/2013 494437 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-2.2 3/14/2013 494436 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-2.3 3/14/2013 494435 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-2.4 3/14/2013 494434 T. PHIL. RHUM 60 720 32.10 23,112.00 P-50-1-2.5 3/15/2013 494444 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-3.1 3/15/2013 494443 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-3.2 3/15/2013 494442 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-3.3 3/15/2013 494441 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 960 11520 12.79 147,340.80 P-50-1-3.4 3/15/2013 494440 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-3.5 3/15/2013 494439 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-3.6 3/19/2013 494455 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10800 17.98 194,184.00 P-50-1-4.1 3/19/2013 494454 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10800 17.98 194,184.00 P-50-1-4.2 3/19/2013 494453 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10800 17.98 194,184.00 P-50-1-4.3 3/19/2013 494452 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10800 17.98 194,184.00 P-50-1-4.4 3/19/2013 494451 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10800 17.98 194,184.00 P-50-1-4.5 3/19/2013 494450 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10800 17.98 194,184.00 P-50-1-4.6 3/19/2013 494449 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-4.7 3/19/2013 494448 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-4.8 3/19/2013 494447 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-4.9 3/19/2013 494446 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-4.10 3/19/2013 494445 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-4.11 3/20/2013 494473 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10800 17.98 194,184.00 P-50-1-5.1 3/20/2013 494472 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10800 17.98 194,184.00 P-50-1-5.2 3/20/2013 494471 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10800 17.98 194,184.00 P-50-1-5.3 3/20/2013 494470 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10800 17.98 194,184.00 P-50-1-5.4 3/20/2013 494469 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10800 17.98 194,184.00 P-50-1-5.5 3/20/2013 494468 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1440 17280 17.98 310,694.40 P-50-1-5.6 3/20/2013 494467 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1440 17280 17.98 310,694.40 P-50-1-5.7 3/20/2013 494466 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-5.8 3/20/2013 494465 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-5.9 3/20/2013 494464 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-5.10 3/20/2013 494463 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-5.11 3/20/2013 494462 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-5.12 3/20/2013 494461 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-5.13 3/20/2013 494460 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-5.14 3/20/2013 494459 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-5.15 3/20/2013 494458 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-5.16 3/20/2013 494457 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1100 13200 17.98 237,336.00 P-50-1-5.17 3/20/2013 494456 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1100 13200 17.98 237,336.00 P-50-1-5.18 3/21/2013 494486 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10800 17.98 194,184.00 P-50-1-6.1 3/21/2013 494485 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10800 17.98 194,184.00 P-50-1-6.2 3/21/2013 494484 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10800 17.98 194,184.00 P-50-1-6.3 3/21/2013 494483 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10800 17.98 194,184.00 P-50-1-6.4 3/21/2013 494482 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10800 17.98 194,184.00 P-50-1-6.5 3/21/2013 494481 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1440 17280 17.98 310,694.40 P-50-1-6.6 3/21/2013 494480 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1440 17280 17.98 310,694.40 P-50-1-6.7 3/21/2013 494479 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-6.8 3/21/2013 494478 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-6.9 3/21/2013 494477 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-6.10 3/21/2013 494476 CENTENNIAL RUM 7 70 336.02 23,521.40 P-50-1-6.11 3/21/2013 494475 T. PHIL. RHUM 25 300 32.1 9,630.00 P-50-1-6.12 3/21/2013 494474 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10800 17.98 194,184.00 P-50-1-6.13 3/22/2013 494492 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-7.1 3/22/2013 494491 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-7.2 3/22/2013 494490 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1100 13200 12.79 168,828.00 P-50-1-7.3 3/22/2013 494489 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1100 13200 17.98 237,336.00 P-50-1-7.4 3/22/2013 494488 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1100 13200 17.98 237,336.00 P-50-1-7.5 3/22/2013 494487 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 960 11520 12.79 147,340.80 P-50-1-7.6 TOTAL QUIAPO PLANT 11,225,203.40 CABUYAO PLANT 3/13/2013 498329 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-1.1 3/13/2013 498328 TANDUAY RHUM E.S.Q. 750 ML 900 10,800 13.20 142,560.00 P-51-1-1.2 3/13/2013 498327 TANDUAY RHUM E.S.Q. 750 ML 900 10,800 13.20 142,560.00 P-51-1-1.3 3/13/2013 498326 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-1.4 3/13/2013 498325 TANDUAY RHUM E.S.Q. 750 ML 900 10,800 13.20 142,560.00 P-51-1-1.5 3/13/2013 498324 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,872 56,160 6.09 342,014.40 P-51-1-1.6 3/13/2013 498323 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-1.7 3/13/2013 498322 TANDUAY RHUM E.S.Q. 750 ML 900 10,800 13.20 142,560.00 P-51-1-1.8 3/13/2013 498321 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-1.9 3/13/2013 498320 TANDUAY RHUM E.S.Q. 750 ML 900 10,800 13.20 142,560.00 P-51-1-1.10 3/13/2013 498319 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-1.11 3/13/2013 498318 TANDUAY RHUM E.S.Q. 750 ML 900 10,800 13.20 142,560.00 P-51-1-1.12 3/13/2013 498317 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,170 35,100 6.09 213,759.00 P-51-1-1.13 3/1312013 498316 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-1.14 3/13/2013 498315 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,170 35,100 6.09 213,759.00 P-51-1-1.15 3/13/2013 498314 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-1.16 3/13/2013 498313 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,170 35,100 6.09 213,759.00 P-51-1-1.17 3/13/2013 498312 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1,440 17,280 11.80 203,904.00 P-51-1-1.18 3/13/2013 498311 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-1.19 3/13/2013 498310 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-1.20 3/13/2013 498309 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,584 38,016 8.91 338,722.56 P-51-1-1.21 3/13/2013 498308 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-1.22 3/13/2013 498307 TANDUAY RHUM E.S.Q. 750 ML 900 10,800 13.20 142,560.00 P-51-1-1.23 3/13/2013 498306 TANDUAY RHUM E.S.Q. 750 ML 900 10,800 13.20 142,560.00 P-51-1-1.24 3/13/2013 498305 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-1.25 3/13/2013 498304 TANDUAY RHUM E.S.Q. 750 ML 900 10,800 13.20 142,560.00 P-51-1-1.26 3/13/2013 498303 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-1.27 3/13/2013 498302 TANDUAY RHUM E.S.Q. 750 ML 900 10,800 13.20 142,560.00 P-51-1-1.28 3/13/2013 498301 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-1.29 3/13/2013 498300 TANDUAY RHUM E.S.Q. 750 ML 900 10,800 13.20 142,560.00 P-51-1-1.30 3/13/2013 498299 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-1.31 3/13/2013 498298 TANDUAY RHUM E.S.Q. 750 ML 900 10,800 13.20 142,560.00 P-51-1-1.32 3/13/2013 498297 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-1.33 3/13/2013 498296 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,170 35,100 6.09 213,759.00 P-51-1-1.34 3/13/2013 498295 TANDUAY RHUM E.S.Q. 750 ML 900 10,800 13.20 142,560.00 P-51-1-1.35 3/13/2013 498294 TANDUAY RHUM E.S.Q. 750 ML 900 10,800 13.20 142,560.00 P-51-1-1.36 3/14/2013 498360 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,170 35,100 6.09 213,759.00 P-51-1-2.1 3/14/2013 498359 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-2.2 3/14/2013 498358 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-2.3 3/14/2013 498357 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-2.4 3/14/2013 498356 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-2.5 3/14/2013 498355 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-2.6 3/14/2013 498354 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-2.7 3/14/2013 498353 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,170 35,100 6.09 213,759.00 P-51-1-2.8 3/14/2013 498352 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,170 35,100 6.09 213,759.00 P-51-1-2.9 3/14/2013 498351 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,170 35,100 6.09 213,759.00 P-51-1-2.10 3/14/2013 498350 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-2.11 3/14/2013 498349 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-2.12 3/14/2013 498348 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-2.13 3/14/2013 498347 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-2.14 3/14/2013 498346 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-2.15 3/14/2013 498345 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-2.16 3/14/2013 498344 TANDUAY RHUM E.S.Q. 750 ML 62 744 13.20 9,820.80 P-51-1-2.17 3/14/2013 498344 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,485 35,640 8.91 317,552.40 P-51-1-2.17 3/14/2013 498343 TANDUAY RHUM E.S.Q. 750 ML 900 10,800 13.20 142,560.00 P-51-1-2.18 3/14/2013 498342 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-2.19 3/14/2013 498341 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-2.20 3/14/2013 498340 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-2.21 3/14/2013 498339 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-2.22 3/14/2013 498338 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-2.23 3/14/2013 498337 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-2.24 3/14/2013 498336 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-2.25 3/14/2013 498335 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,170 35,100 6.09 213,759.00 P-51-1-2.26 3/14/2013 498334 TANDUAY RHUM E.S.Q. 750 ML 256 3,072 13.20 40,550.40 P-51-1-2.27 3/14/2013 498334 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 693 16,632 8.91 148,191.12 P-51-1-2.27 3/14/2013 498333 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-2.28 3/14/2013 498332 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,170 35,100 6.09 213,759.00 P-51-1-2.29 3/14/2013 498331 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-2.30 3/14/2013 498330 TANDUAY RHUM E.S.Q. 750 ML 900 10,800 13.20 142,560.00 P-51-1-2.31 3/15/2013 498383 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-3.1 3/15/2013 498382 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-3.2 3/15/2013 498381 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,521 45,630 6.09 277,886.70 P-51-1-3.3 3/15/2013 498381 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 270 3,240 11.80 38,232.00 P-51-1-3.3 3/15/2013 498380 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-3.4 3/15/2013 498379 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10,800 17.98 194,184.00 P-51-1-3.5 3/15/2013 498378 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-3.6 3/15/2013 498377 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,872 56,160 6.09 342,014.40 P-51-1-3.7 3/15/2013 498376 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-3.8 3/15/2013 498375 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-3.9 3/15/2013 498374 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-3.10 3/15/2013 498373 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,170 35,100 6.09 213,759.00 P-51-1-3.11 3/15/2013 498372 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10,800 17.98 194,184.00 P-51-1-3.12 3/15/2013 498371 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10,800 17.98 194,184.00 P-51-1-3.13 3/15/2013 498370 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,170 35,100 6.09 213,759.00 P-51-1-3.14 3/15/2013 498369 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,170 35,100 6.09 213,759.00 P-51-1-3.15 3/15/2013 498368 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-3.16 3/15/2013 498367 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-3.17 3/15/2013 498366 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-3.18 3/15/2013 498365 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,170 35,100 6.09 213,759.00 P-51-1-3.19 3/15/2013 498364 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-3.20 3/15/2013 498363 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-3.21 3/15/2013 498362 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-3.22 3/15/2013 498361 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-3.23 3/16/2013 498404 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,170 35,100 6.09 213,759.00 P-51-1-4.1 3/16/2013 498404 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 198 4,752 8.91 42,340.32 P-51-1-4.1 3/16/2013 498404 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 180 2,160 17.98 38,836.80 P-51-1-4.1 3/16/2013 498403 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-51-1-4.2 3/16/2013 498402 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-51-1-4.3 3/16/2013 498401 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 234 7,020 6.09 42,751.80 P-51-1-4.4 3/16/2013 498401 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-4.4 3/16/2013 498400 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,404 42,120 6.09 256,510.80 P-51-1-4.5 3/16/2013 498399 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-4.6 3/16/2013 498398 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10,800 17.98 194,184.00 P-51-1-4.7 3/16/2013 498397 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-4.8 3/16/2013 498396 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-4.9 3/16/2013 498395 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10,800 17.98 194,184.00 P-51-1-4.10 3/16/2013 498394 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10,800 17.98 194,184.00 P-51-1-4.11 3/16/2013 498393 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-4.12 3/16/2013 498392 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-4.13 3/16/2013 498391 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-4.14 3/16/2013 498390 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-4.15 3/16/2013 498389 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-4.16 3/16/2013 498388 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-4.17 3/16/2013 498387 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1,440 17,280 11.80 203,904.00 P-51-1-4.18 3/16/2013 498386 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-4.19 3/16/2013 498385 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 900 10,800 17.98 194,184.00 P-51-1-4.20 3/16/2013 498384 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-4.21 3/18/2013 498417 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,638 49,140 6.09 299,262.60 P-51-1-5.1 3/18/2013 498416 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-5.2 3/18/2013 498415 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.607 P-51-1-5.3 3/18/2013 498414 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-5.4 3/18/2013 498413 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 297 7,128 8.91 63,510.48 P-51-1-5.5 3/18/2013 498413 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 630 7,560 17.98 135,928.80 P-51-1-5.5 3/18/2013 498412 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-5.6 3/18/2013 498411 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-5.7 3/18/2013 498410 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-5.8 3/18/2013 498409 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,755 52,650 6.09 320,638.50 P-51-1-5.9 3/18/2013 498409 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 90 1,080 11.80 12,744.00 P-51-1-5.9 3/18/2013 498408 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-5.10 3/18/2013 498407 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-5.11 3/18/2013 498406 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-5.12 3/18/2013 498405 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-5.13 3/19/2013 498424 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 360 4,320 11.80 50,976.00 P-51-1-6.1 3/19/2013 498424 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 594 14,256 8.91 127,020.96 P-51-1-6.1 3/19/2013 498423 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-6.2 3/19/2013 498422 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-6.3 3/19/2013 498421 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,584 38,016 8.91 338,722.56 P-51-1-6.4 3/19/2013 498420 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-6.5 3/19/2013 498419 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-6.6 3/19/2013 498418 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-6.7 3/20/2013 498430 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 720 8,640 11.80 101,952.00 P-51-1-7.1 3/20/2013 498430 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 234 7,020 6.09 42,751.80 P-51-1-7.1 3/20/2013 498429 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-7.2 3/20/2013 498428 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 810 9,720 11.80 114,696.00 P-51-1-7.3 3/20/2013 498428 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 117 3,510 6.09 21,375.90 P-51-1-7.3 3/20/2013 498427 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-7.4 3/20/2013 498426 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 810 9,720 11.80 114,696.00 P-51-1-7.5 3/20/2013 498426 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 90 1,080 17.98 19,418.40 P-51-1-7.5 3/20/2013 498425 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1,440 17,280 11.80 203,904.00 P-51-1-7.6 3/21/2013 498436 BORACAY RUM MELON 700 ML 720 8,640 11.97 103,420.80 P-51-1-8.1 3/21/2013 498436 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 219 5,256 8.91 46,830.96 P-51-1-8.1 3/21/2013 498435 BORACAY RUM MELON 700 ML 900 10,800 11.97 129,276.00 P-51-1-8.2 3/21/2013 498434 BORACAY RUM MELON 700 ML 900 10,800 11.97 129,276.00 P-51-1-8.3 3/21/2013 498433 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,170 35,100 6.09 213,759.00 P-51-1-8.4 3/21/2013 498432 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,170 35,100 6.09 213,759.00 P-51-1-8.5 3/21/2013 498431 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,872 56,160 6.09 342,014.40 P-51-1-8.6 3/22/2013 498454 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,404 42,120 6.09 256,510.80 P-51-1-9.1 3/22/2013 498454 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 360 4,320 11.80 50,976.00 P-51-1-9.1 3/22/2013 498453 BORACAY RUM MELON 700 ML 900 10,800 11.97 129,276.00 P-51-1-9.2 3/22/2013 498452 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-9.3 3/22/2013 498451 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-9.4 3/22/2013 498450 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-9.5 3/22/2013 498449 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,872 56,160 6.09 342,014.40 P-51-1-9.6 3/22/2013 498448 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-9.7 3/22/2013 498447 BORACAY RUM MELON 700 ML 900 10,800 11.97 129,276.00 P-51-1-9.8 3/22/2013 498446 BORACAY RUM MELON 700 ML 900 10,800 11.97 129,276.00 P-51-1-9.9 3/22/2013 498445 BORACAY RUM MELON 700 ML 900 10,800 11.97 129,276.00 P-51-1-9.10 3/22/2013 498444 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-9.11 3/22/2013 498443 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-9.12 3/22/2013 498442 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-9.13 3/22/2013 498441 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-9.14 3/22/2013 498440 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,170 35,100 6.09 213,759.00 P-51-1-9.15 3/22/2013 498439 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-9.16 3/22/2013 498438 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-9.17 3/22/2013 498437 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 1,440 17,280 11.80 203,904.00 P-51-1-9.18 3/23/2013 498468 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,584 38,016 8.91 338,722.56 P-51-1-10.1 3/23/2013 498467 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-10.2 3/23/2013 498466 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-10.3 3/23/2013 498465 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-10.4 3/23/2013 498464 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,584 38,016 8.91 338,722.56 P-51-1-10.5 3/23/2013 498463 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-10.6 3/23/2013 498462 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-10.7 3/23/2013 498461 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-10.8 3/23/2013 498460 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-10.9 3/23/2013 498459 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,872 56,160 6.09 342,014.40 P-51-1-10.10 3/23/2013 498458 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-10.11 3/23/2013 498457 BORACAY RUM MELON 700 ML 900 10,800 11.97 129,276.00 P-51-1-10.12 3/23/2013 498456 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 990 23,760 8.91 211,701.60 P-51-1-10.13 3/23/2013 498455 TANDUAY RHUM LIGHT 750 ML 900 10,800 11.80 127,440.00 P-51-1-10.14 3/25/2013 498471 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,170 35,100 6.09 213,759.00 P-51-1-11.1 3/25/2013 498470 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,170 35,100 6.09 213,759.00 P-51-1-11.2 3/25/2013 498469 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,170 35,100 6.09 213,759.00 P-51-1-11.3 TOTAL CABUYAO PLANT 185,253 3,557,358 31,885,856.82 BACOLOD PLANT 3/13/2013 504750 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-1.1 3/13/2013 504749 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-1.2 3/13/2013 504748 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-1.3 3/13/2013 504747 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-1.4 3/13/2013 504746 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-1.5 3/13/2013 504745 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-1.6 3/13/2013 504744 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-1.7 3/13/2013 504743 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-1.8 3/13/2013 445720 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-1.9 3/13/2013 445719 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-1.10 313/2013 445718 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-1.11 3/13/2013 445717 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-1.12 3/13/2013 445716 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-1.13 3/13/2013 445715 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-1.14 3/13/2013 445714 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-1.15 3/13/2013 445713 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-1.16 3/13/2013 445712 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-1.17 3/13/2013 445711 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-1.18 3/13/2013 445710 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-1.19 3/13/2013 445709 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-1.20 3/13/2013 445708 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-1.21 3/13/2013 445707 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-1.22 3/13/2013 445706 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-1.23 3/13/2013 445705 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-1.24 3/13/2013 445704 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-1.25 3/13/2013 445703 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-1.26 3/13/2013 445702 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-1.27 3/13/2013 445701 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-1.28 3/15/2013 445727 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-2.1 3/15/2013 445726 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-2.2 3/15/2013 445725 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-2.3 3/15/2013 445724 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-2.4 3/15/2013 445723 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-2.5 3/15/2013 445722 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-2.6 3/15/2013 445721 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-2.7 3/16/2013 445761 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-3.1 3/16/2013 445760 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-3.2 3/16/2013 445759 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-3.3 3/16/2013 445758 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-3.4 3/16/2013 445757 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-3.5 3/16/2013 445756 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-3.6 3/16/2013 445755 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-3.7 3/16/2013 445754 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-3.8 3/16/2013 445753 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-3.9 3/16/2013 445752 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-3.10 3/16/2013 445751 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-3.11 3/16/2013 445750 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-3.12 3/16/2013 445749 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-3.13 3/16/2013 445748 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-3.14 3/16/2013 445747 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-3.15 3/16/2013 445746 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-3.16 3/16/2013 445745 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-3.17 3/16/2013 445744 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-3.18 3/16/2013 445743 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-3.19 3/16/2013 445742 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-3.20 3/16/2013 445741 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-3.21 3/16/2013 445740 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-3.22 3/16/2013 445739 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-3.23 3/16/2013 445738 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-3.24 3/16/2013 445737 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-3.25 3/16/2013 445736 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-3.26 3/16/2013 445735 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-3.27 3/16/2013 445734 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-3.28 3/16/2013 445733 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-3.29 3/16/2013 445732 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-3.30 3/16/2013 445731 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-3.31 3/16/2013 445730 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-3.32 3/16/2013 445729 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-3.33 3/16/2013 445728 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-3.34 3/18/2013 445771 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-4.1 3/18/2013 445770 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-4.2 3/18/2013 445769 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-4.3 3/18/2013 445768 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-4.4 3/18/2013 445767 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-4.5 3/18/2013 445766 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-4.6 3/18/2013 445765 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-4.7 3/18/2013 445764 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-4.8 3/18/2013 445763 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-4.9 3/18/2013 445762 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-4.10 3/20/2013 445809 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-5.1 3/20/2013 445808 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-5.2 3/20/2013 445807 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-5.3 3/20/2013 445806 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-5.4 3/20/2013 445805 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-5.5 3/20/2013 445804 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-5.6 3/20/2013 445803 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-5.7 3/20/2013 445802 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-5.8 3/20/2013 445801 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-5.9 3/20/2013 445800 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-5.10 3/20/2013 445799 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-5.11 3/20/2013 445798 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-5.12 3/20/2013 445797 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-5.13 3/20/2013 445796 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-5.14 3/20/2013 445795 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-5.15 3/20/2013 445794 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-5.16 3/20/2013 445793 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-5.17 3/20/2013 445792 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-5.18 3/20/2013 445791 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-5.19 3/20/2013 445790 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-5.20 3/20/2013 445789 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-5.21 3/20/2013 445788 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-5.22 3/20/2013 445787 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-5.23 3/20/2013 445786 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-5.24 3/20/2013 445785 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-5.25 3/20/2013 445784 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-5.26 3/20/2013 445783 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-5.27 3/20/2013 445782 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-5.28 3/20/2013 445781 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-5.29 3/20/2013 445780 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-5.30 3/20/2013 445779 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-5.31 3/20/2013 445778 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-5.32 3/20/2013 445777 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-5.33 3/20/2013 445776 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-5.34 3/20/2013 445775 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-5.35 3/20/2013 445774 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-5.36 3/20/2013 445773 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-5.37 3/20/2013 445772 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-5.38 3/21/2013 445832 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-6.1 3/21/2013 445831 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-6.2 3/21/2013 445830 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-6.3 3/21/2013 445829 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,456 43,680 6.09 266,011.20 P-52-1-6.4 3/21/2013 445828 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-6.5 3/21/2013 445827 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-6.6 3/21/2013 445826 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-6.7 3/21/2013 445825 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-6.8 3/21/2013 445824 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-6.9 3/21/2013 445823 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-6.10 3/21/2013 445822 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-6.11 3/21/2013 445821 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-6.12 3/21/2013 445820 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-6.13 3/21/2013 445819 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-6.14 3/21/2013 445818 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-6.15 3/21/2013 445817 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-6.16 3/21/2013 445816 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-6.17 3/21/2013 445815 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-6.18 3/21/2013 445814 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-6.19 3/21/2013 445813 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-6.20 3/21/2013 445812 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-6.21 3/21/2013 445811 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-6.22 3/21/2013 445810 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-6.23 3/22/2013 445842 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,386 33,264 6.81 226,527.84 P-52-1-7.1 3/22/2013 445841 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-7.2 3/22/2013 445840 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-7.3 3/22/2013 445839 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,260 15,120 17.98 271,857.60 P-52-1-7.4 3/22/2013 445838 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-7.5 3/22/2013 445837 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-7.6 3/22/2013 445836 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,386 33,264 8.91 296,382.24 P-52-1-7.7 3/22/2013 445835 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 212 5,088 8.91 45,334.08 P-52-1-7.8 3/22/2013 445835 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 921 11,052 17.98 198,714.96 P-52-1-7.8 3/22/2013 445835 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 76 2,280 6.09 13,885.20 P-52-1-7.8 3/22/2013 445835 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 59 1,416 6.81 9,642.96 P-52-1-7.8 3/22/2013 445834 TANDUAY RHUM 65 375 ML 1,089 26,136 6.81 177,986.16 P-52-1-7.9 3/22/2013 445834 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 297 7,128 8.91 63,510.48 P-52-1-7.9 3/22/2013 445833 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 99 2,376 8.91 21,170.16 P-52-1-7.10 3/22/2013 445833 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 250 ML 1,352 40,560 6.09 247,010.40 P-52-1-7.10 TOTAL BACOLOD PLANT 40,547,894.40 CAGAYAN PLANT 3/13/2013 455532 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,584 38,016 8.91 338,722.56 P-53-1-1.1 3/13/2013 455531 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,584 38,016 8.91 338,722.56 P-53-1-1.2 3/13/2013 455530 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-1.3 3/13/2013 455529 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-1.4 3/14/2013 455540 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 540 6,480 17.98 116,510.40 P-53-1-2.1 3/14/2013 455540 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 594 14,256 8.91 127,020.96 P-53-1-2.1 3/14/2013 455539 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-2.2 3/14/2013 455538 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-2.3 3/14/2013 455537 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,440 17,280 17.98 310,694.40 P-53-1-2.4 3/14/2013 455536 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,440 17,280 17.98 310,694.40 P-53-1-2.5 3/14/2013 455535 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-2.6 3/14/2013 455534 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-2.7 3/14/2013 455533 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-2.8 3/15/2013 455551 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-3.1 3/15/2013 455550 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-3.2 3/15/2013 455549 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-3.3 3/15/2013 455548 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,440 17,280 17.98 310,694.40 P-53-1-3.4 3/15/2013 455547 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,440 17,280 17.98 310,694.40 P-53-1-3.5 3/15/2013 455546 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-3.6 3/15/2013 455545 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-3.7 3/15/2013 455544 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-3.8 3/15/2013 455543 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-3.9 3/15/2013 455542 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-3.10 3/15/2013 455541 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-3.11 3/16/2013 455554 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-4.1 3/16/2013 455553 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-4.2 3/16/2013 455552 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-4.3 3/18/2013 455566 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-5.1 3/18/2013 455565 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-5.2 3/18/2013 455564 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-5.3 3/18/2013 455563 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-5.4 3/18/2013 455562 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-5.5 3/18/2013 455561 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,440 17,280 17.98 310,694.40 P-53-1-5.6 3/18/2013 455560 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,440 17,280 17.98 310,694.40 P-53-1-5.7 3/18/2013 455559 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-5.8 3/18/2013 455558 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-5.9 3/18/2013 455557 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-5.10 3/18/2013 455556 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-5.11 3/18/2013 455555 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-5.12 3/19/2013 455575 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-6.1 3/19/2013 455574 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,440 17,280 17.98 310,694.40 P-53-1-6.2 3/19/2013 455573 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,440 17,280 17.98 310,694.40 P-53-1-6.3 3/19/2013 455572 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-6.4 3/19/2013 455571 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-6.5 3/19/2013 455570 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-6.6 3/19/2013 455569 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-6.7 3/19/2013 455568 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-6.8 3/19/2013 455567 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-6.9 3/20/2013 455584 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-7.1 3/20/2013 455583 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,584 38,016 8.91 338,722.56 P-53-1-7.2 3/20/2013 455582 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,584 38,016 8.91 338,722.56 P-53-1-7.3 3/20/2013 455581 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,584 38,016 8.91 338,722.56 P-53-1-7.4 3/20/2013 455580 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-7.5 3/20/2013 455579 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-7.6 3/20/2013 455578 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-7.7 3/20/2013 455577 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-7.8 3/20/2013 455576 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-7.9 3/21/2013 455597 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-8.1 3/21/2013 455596 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-8.2 3/21/2013 455595 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-8.3 3/21/2013 455594 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-8.4 3/21/2013 455593 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-8.5 3/21/2013 455592 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-8.6 3/21/2013 455591 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-8.7 3/21/2013 455590 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-8.8 3/21/2013 455589 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-8.9 3/21/2013 455588 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-8.10 3/21/2013 455587 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-8.11 3/21/2013 455586 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-8.12 3/21/2013 455585 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-8.13 3/22/2013 455605 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,584 38,016 8.91 338,722.56 P-53-1-9.1 3/22/2013 455604 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,584 38,016 8.91 338,722.56 P-53-1-9.2 3/22/2013 455603 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-9.3 3/22/2013 455602 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-9.4 3/22/2013 455601 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-9.5 3/22/2013 455600 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-9.6 3/22/2013 455599 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-9.7 3/22/2013 455598 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-9.8 3/23/2013 455612 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-10.1 3/23/2013 455611 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-10.2 3/23/2013 455610 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-10.3 3/23/2013 455609 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-10.4 3/23/2013 455608 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-10.5 3/23/2013 455607 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-10.6 3/23/2013 455606 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,188 28,512 8.91 254,041.92 P-53-1-10.7 3/25/2013 455620 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-11.1 3/25/2013 455619 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,584 38,016 8.91 338,722.56 P-53-1-11.2 3/25/2013 455618 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,584 38,016 8.91 338,722.56 P-53-1-11.3 3/25/2013 455617 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 375 ML 1,584 38,016 8.91 338,722.56 P-53-1-11.4 3/25/2013 455616 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-11.5 3/25/2013 455615 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-11.6 3/25/2013 455614 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-11.7 3/25/2013 455613 TANDUAY RHUM DARK FIVE YEARS 750 ML 1,080 12,960 17.98 233,020.80 P-53-1-11.8 TOTAL CAGAYAN PLANT 23,673,379.68 GRAND TOTAL 107,332,334.30 Hence, only the remaining claim in the amount of P766,153,512.80 was timely filed within the two-year prescriptive period, computed as follows: HSCATc CTA Case No. 9017 CTA Case No. 9035 Total Amount of Claim per Petition for Review P340,826,261.32 P671,069,789.10 P1,011,896,050.42 Less: Prescribed Claim March 1-12, 2013 P133,282,092.84 P133,282,092.84 March 13-25, 2013 107,332,334.30 107,332,334.30 Portion of the claim for March 2013 which is unsupported by ETRDs, hence, considered to have prescribed 5,128,110.48 5,128,110.48 Total P245,742,537.62 P245,742,537.62 Amount of Claim filed within the 2-yr. prescriptive period P95,083,723.70 P671,069,789.10 P766,153,512.80 Proceeding with the determination of the proper refundable amount on the basis that petitioner has lawful claim over the erroneous imposition of excise taxes on the removal of its finished goods for the period March 26, 2013 to July 31, 2013, it is imperative for petitioner to convince the Court that the amount per instant claim is composed entirely of finished goods produced from tax-paid raw materials. Petitioner alleges that the finished goods it produced from January to July 2013 for which excise taxes have been paid and are being claimed for refund, were produced from raw materials which were previously subjected to excise taxes. These raw materials allegedly came from its inventory on hand and in transit as of December 31, 2012 and from its importations for the period January 10 to February 15, 2013. Ending Inventories as of December 31, 2012 The claimed inventory levels of raw materials on hand and in transit, and finished goods as of December 31, 2012 were reviewed and validated by the ICPA against the Inventory Count Sheets 71 prepared by the BIR. A summary of the validated inventories in proof liter with the corresponding excise taxes paid is presented below: EHaASD Particulars In Proof Liters Specific Tax Rate Excise Tax Paid Raw materials: On hand 40,301,135.81 P14.68 P591,620,673.69 In transit as at 12/31/2012 2,150,750.00 P14.68 P31,573,010.00 Finished Goods 6,991,603.16 P14.68 P102,636,734.36 Total 49,443,488.97 P725,830,418.05 Based on Petition for Review 49,386,088.87 P724,987,784.61 Difference 57,400.10 P842,633.44 According to the ICPA, the difference of 57,400.10 proof liters with excise taxes of P842,633.44 was due to a mathematical error in the computation of proof liter for finished goods. Tax paid Raw Materials Purchases from August 2012 to December 2012 To prove that the ending inventories of raw materials as discussed were actually subjected to excise taxes, petitioner presented the local and imported purchases of alcohol for the period August to December 2012, which allegedly were the sources of the ending inventories as of December 31, 2012, and the corresponding payments of excise taxes due thereon were validated and checked by the ICPA against the pertinent purchase documents ( i.e. , accounts payable vouchers (APVs), sales invoices and delivery receipts) and the remittance of excise taxes to the BIR were confirmed by the ICPA with the local suppliers through confirmation request letters sent to the latter. The same are summarized as follows: 72 A B C D E Supplier Quantity (Liters) Alcohol Content In Proof Liters (A x B = C) Specific tax rate Specific Tax Paid (C x D = E) Imported 12,061,988 190% 22,917,777.20 P14.68 P336,830,653.00 Local suppliers: Asian Alcohol 1,840,000 140% 2,576,000.00 14.68 37,815,680.00 Absolut Distillers 7,650,000 189% 14,458,500.00 14.68 212,250,780.00 Kooll Company 5,042,153 189% 9,529,669.17 14.68 139,895,543.42 26,594,141 49,481,946.37 P726,394,972.71 The Court finds that the supporting documents pertaining to petitioner's imported alcohol purchases such as the APVs, Bureau of Customs (BOC) import entry declarations, BOC assessment notices, and bank debit tickets 73 sufficiently prove petitioner's actual importation of alcohol from August to December 2012 and payment to the BOC of the related excise taxes in the amount of P336,830,653.00. With regard to petitioner's local purchases of alcohol, the documents submitted by petitioner such as the APV listings, Sales Invoices, Delivery Receipts, etc. 74 and confirmation letters from suppliers 75 prove that petitioner was charged and billed for its alcohol purchases including the corresponding excise taxes by its local suppliers, namely, Asian Alcohol, Absolut Distillers and Kooll Company. However, these documents do not prove petitioner's actual payment of the excise taxes passed on by its local suppliers and the remittance thereof by its local suppliers to the BIR. Raw Materials Purchased for January 2013 and February 2013 The Court-commissioned ICPA summarized petitioner's imported alcohol purchases from January 10, 2013 to February 15, 2013 as follows: 76 SICDAa APV No. Date Qty. in Liters Proof Qty. in Proof Liter Excise Tax Rate Excise Tax Paid Exhibit APV # 2800 1/10/2013 352,500 1.90 669,750 P14.68 P9,831,930.00 Exh. P-43.1 APV # 2832 1/25/2013 117,500 1.90 223,250 P14.68 3,277,310.00 Exh. P-43.2 APV # 2835 1/29/2013 235,000 1.90 446,500 P14.68 6,554,620.00 Exh. P-43.3 APV # 2848 2/1/2013 117,500 1.90 223,250 P14.68 3,277,310.00 Exh. P-43.4 APV # 2859-A 2/8/2013 282,000 1.90 535,800 P14.68 7,865,544.00 Exh. P-43.5 APV # 2836 1/29/2013 117,500 1.90 223,250 P14.68 3,277,310.00 Exh. P-43.6 APV # 2865 2/15/2013 188,000 1.90 357,200 P14.68 5,243,696.00 Exh. P-43.7 APV # 2866 2/15/2013 235,000 1.90 446,500 P14.68 6,554,620.00 Exh. P-43.8 TOTAL 1,645,000 3,125,500 P45,882,340.00 However, the exhibits indicated in the above table were merely APV listings which do not prove actual importations of alcohol and payment of the corresponding excise taxes of P45,882,340.00. To recapitulate, petitioner was able to establish actual payment of excise taxes only on its importation of raw materials for the period August 2012 to December 2012, detailed as follows: 77 TAacHE A B C D E Supplier Quantity (Liters) Alcohol Content In Proof Liters (A x B = C) Specific tax rate Specific Tax Paid (C x D = E) Imported 12,061,988 190% 22,917,777.20 P14.68 P336,830,653.00 However, the Court cannot ascertain from the records which portion of the above purchases actually remained in petitioner's inventory of raw materials as of December 31, 2012. Even granting, for the sake of argument, that the aforesaid entire purchases remained unutilized and formed part of petitioner's inventory as of December 31, 2012, the Court cannot determine with certainty the volume of finished goods that were produced therefrom. The ICPA mentions in his report that "the proof liters of finished goods produced from January to July 2013 correspond to the proof liters quantity in the December 31, 2012 inventory and raw materials purchases of January and February 2013 . This allegedly proves the correctness of the petitioner's claim that the finished goods were produced from the tax paid raw materials. 78 However, absent documents supporting the quantity in proof liters of raw materials (alcohol) required to produce one (1) proof liter of finished goods (compounded liquor), the Court cannot verify the accuracy of the ICPA's concluding statement. DHIcET Moreover, a comparison of petitioner's claimed finished goods from January to July 2013 in proof liters with the proof liters of raw materials inventory as of December 31, 2012 plus the proof liters of raw materials purchases during January and February 2013 which were allegedly still subjected to specific tax, resulted to a difference of 7,334,154.84 in proof liters, to wit: In Proof Liters Finished Goods removed from January to July 2013 (Exhibit "P-44") 52,910,790.65 Raw Materials (on hand and in transit) as of December 31, 2012 per BIR count sheets (Exhibit "P-40") 42,451,135.81 Raw Materials purchased during January and February 2013 that were still subjected to specific tax under the old law per BIR count sheets (Exhibit "P-43") 3,125,500.00 45,576,636.81 Difference (in Proof Liters) 7,334,154.84 Neither petitioner nor the ICPA provided an explanation or reconciliation for the same. Moreover, supporting documents such as petitioner's Audited Financial Statements for the year ended December 31, 2012 were not submitted as evidence of the ending balance of raw materials inventory, hence our review relies on the report of the inventory stock taking done by the BIR. HDICSa The fact that the quantity of finished goods removed from January 2013 to July 2013 is greater than the combined ending inventories as of December 31, 2012 and the additional tax-paid raw materials purchases during January to February 2013 means that a certain portion of the finished goods removed already made use of raw materials purchases that were not subjected to excise taxes. In sum, the Court finds that petitioner failed to prove the factual aspect of its claim for refund. Well-settled is the rule that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions. As such, they are regarded as derogation of sovereign authority and to be construed strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the refund. 79 Petitioner has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of its claim for tax refund. WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, petitioner's Petitions for Review in CTA Case Nos. 9017 and 9035 are DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. HcDSaT (SGD.) CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., J. , concurs. Footnotes 1. Docket, Vol. I, CTA Case No. 9017, pp. 10-25. 2. Docket, Vol. I, CTA Case No. 9035, pp. 10-23. 3. Docket, CTA Case No. 9017, Vol. IV, Par. 3, II. Admitted Facts, Consolidated Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (CJSFI), p. 2006. 4. Id. , Vol. IV, Par. 4, II. Admitted Facts, CJSFI, CTA Case No. 9017, p. 2006. 5. Par. 2, II. Admitted Facts, CJSFI, CTA Case No. 9017, Docket Vol. II, p. 2006. 6. "An Act restructuring the excise tax on alcohol and tobacco products by amending Sections 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 8, 131 and 288 of Republic Act No. 8424, otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended by Republic Act No. 9334, and for other purposes." 7. SUBJECT: Prescribing the Implementing Guidelines on the Revised Tax Rates on Alcohol and Tobacco Products Pursuant to the Provisions of Republic Act No. 10351 and to Clarify Certain Provisions of Existing Revenue Regulations, December 21, 2012. 8. SUBJECT: Clarifying Certain Provisions of Revenue Regulations No. 17-2012 Implementing the Provisions of Republic Act No. 10351 as well as the Provisions of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 90-2012 Providing the Initial Classifications of Alcohol and Tobacco Products, January 8, 2013. 9. SUBJECT: Further Clarifying the Taxability of Distilled Spirits Provided under Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 3-2013, February 15, 2013. 10. Docket, Vol. IV, CTA Case No. 9017, Exhibit "P-5", pp. 1855-1856. 11. Id. , Vol. IV, Exhibit "P-6", p. 1857. 12. Id. , Vol. IV, Exhibit "P-7", pp. 1858-1862. 13. Id. , Vol. IV, Exhibit "P-8", pp. 1863-1865. 14. Id. , Vol. IV, Exhibit "P-9", pp. 1866-1868. 15. Id. , Vol. IV, Exhibit "P-10", pp. 1869-1870. 16. Id. , Vol. IV, Exhibit "P-1", pp. 1849-1854. 17. Supra , Note 1. 18. Supra , Note 2. 19. Docket, CTA Case No. 9017, Vol. IV, Orders dated April 28, 2015, and May 26, 2015, pp. 1773 and 1782. 20. Id. , Vol. IV, pp. 1798-1808. 21. Docket, CTA Case No. 9035, Vol. 5, Orders dated June 2, 2015 and July 1, 2015, pp. 3390, and 3396. 22. Id. , Vol. 5, pp. 3397-3408. 23. Docket, CTA Case No. 9017, Vol. IV, Notice of Pre-Trial Conference, pp. 1812-1813. 24. Docket, CTA Case No. 9035, Vol. 5, Notice of Pre-Trial Conference, pp. 3411-3412. 25. Docket, CTA Case No. 9017, Vol. IV, pp. 1817-1823. 26. Id. , Vol. IV, pp. 1824-1827. 27. Id. , Vol. IV, pp. 1907-1913. 28. Id. , Vol. IV, pp. 1956-1962. 29. Docket, CTA Case No. 9035, Vol. 5, pp. 3413-3416. 30. Docket, CTA Case No. 9035, Vol. 5, pp. 3420-3428. 31. CTA Case Nos. 9017 and 9035, Dockets Vol. IV and Vol. 5, pp. 1967-1969 and 3434-3436. 32. CTA Case Nos. 9017 and 9035, Dockets Vol. IV and Vol. 5, pp. 1971-1972 and 3437-3438. 33. Docket, CTA Case No. 9017, Vol. IV, pp. 2005-2013. 34. Id. , Vol. IV, pp. 2014-2021. 35. Id. , Vol. IV, Motion for the Appointment of Mateo Ramos Celestino Llona & Co. CPAs as Independent Certified Public Accountant, pp. 1914-1917. 36. Id. , Vol. IV, pp. 2200-2202 and 2206-2207. 37. Id. , Vol. IV, Exhibit "P-31", Judicial Affidavit of Jaime Bernardo Silva, pp. 2155-2162; Id. , Vol. IV, Minutes of the Hearing dated October 26, 2015, pp. 2200-2201. 38. Id. , Vol. IV, Exhibit "P-32", Amended Judicial Affidavit of Amadeo G. Guevarra, pp. 2032-2046; Id. , Vol. IV, Minutes of the Hearing dated October 26, 2015, pp. 2200-2201. 39. Id. , Vol. V, Exhibit "P-34", Judicial Affidavit of Elrey T. Ramos, pp. 2255-2269; Id. , Vol. V, Minutes of the Hearing dated January 25, 2016, p. 2270. 40. Id. , Vol. V, pp. 2287-2299. 41. Id. , Vol. V, pp. 2411-2413. 42. Docket, CTA Case No. 9017, Vol. V, pp. 2414-2417. 43. Id. , Vol. V, pp. 2425-2427. 44. Id. , Vol. V, pp. 2428-2430. 45. Docket, CTA Case No. 9017, Vol. V, pp. 2436-2437. 46. Id. , Vol. V, pp. 2528-2558. 47. Id. , Vol. V, pp. 2581-2568. 48. Id. , Vol. V, pp. 2569-2576. 49. Id. , Vol. V, pp. 2616-2618. 50. Id. , Vol. V, Exhibit "R-3", Judicial Affidavit of Revenue Officer Evangeline M. Casipe, pp. 2603-2607; Id. , Vol. V, Minutes of the Hearing dated October 25, 2017, p. 2628. 51. Id. , Vol. V, Minutes of the Hearing and Order dated November 27, 2017, pp. 2644 and 2645. 52. Id. , Vol. V, pp. 2646-2658. 53. Id. , Vol. V, pp. 2670-2692. 54. Id. , Vol. V, p. 2693. 55. Docket, CTA Case No. 9017, Vol. IV, III. Issues, CJSFI, p. 2006. 56. "An Act restructuring the excise tax on alcohol and tobacco products by amending Sections 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 8, 131 and 288 of Republic Act No. 8424, otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended by Republic Act No. 9334, and for other purposes." 57. SUBJECT: Prescribing the Implementing Guidelines on the Revised Tax Rates on Alcohol and Tobacco Products Pursuant to the Provisions of Republic Act No. 10351 and to Clarify Certain Provisions of Existing Revenue Regulations, December 21, 2012. 58. SUBJECT: Further Clarifying the Taxability of Distilled Spirits Provided under Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 3-2013, February 15, 2013. 59. Felix B. Perez and Amante G. Doria vs. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company and Jose Luis Santiago , G.R. No. 152048, April 7, 2009. 60. League of Cities of the Philippines, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al. , G.R. Nos. 176951, 177499, & 178056, December 21, 2009. 61. See The Bicameral Conference Report on the disagreeing provisions of House Bill No. 5727 and Senate Bill No. 3299 as reported in the Journal of the Senate (Session 42 Tuesday, December 11, 2012, at p. 1194), http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/1479312570!.pdf ; last accessed: January 21, 2019. 62. The City of Manila, et al. vs. Coca-cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. , G.R. No. 181845, August 4, 2009. 63. A Treatise on Philippine Internal Revenue Taxes, Atty. Eric R. Recalde (2014), p. 680. 64. CIR vs. Central Azucarera Don Pedro , L-28467, February 28, 1973; CIR vs. Insular Lumber Co. , L-24221, December 11, 1967. 65. G.R. No. 216130, August 3, 2016. 66. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Victorias Milling Co., Inc. and The Court of Tax Appeals , G.R. No. L-24108, January 3, 1968; Collector vs. J. N. Sweeney, A. O. Baigrie, and Ramon Burgas , G.R. No. L-12178, August 21, 1959; P.J. Kiener Company, Ltd. v. Saturnino David , G.R. No. L-5163, April 23, 1953. 67. Exhibit "P-44". 68. Docket, Vol. IV, Exhibit "P-1", pp. 1849-1854; and Docket, Vol. V, Exhibit "P-20", pp. 2342-2347. 69. Id. , Vol. I, pp. 10-24. 70. Id. , Vol. I, pp. 10-22. 71. Exhibits "P-40" to "P-40-3". 72. Exhibit "P-41". 73. Exhibits "P-41-1.1" to "P-41-1.40". 74. Exhibits "P-41-2", "P-41-3" and "P-41-4" with sub-markings. 75. Exhibits "P-42" to "P-42.3". 76. Exhibit "P-43". 77. Exhibits "P-41", "P-41-1.1" to "P-41-1.40". 78. Exhibit "P-36", p. 9. 79. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. , G.R. No 127105, June 25, 1999.