CTA Case No. 1415

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO, 1415 divided or distributed, there is levied and assessed against such corporation, for each taxable year, a tax equal to twenty-five sentum of the undistributed portion of its accumulated profits or sur- s which shall be in addition to the — by section twenty-four, and shall computed, colleeted and paid in the same manner and subject to the same provisions of law penalties as that tex: 4 That no such tax be levied upon any accumulated profits or are invested any Gentrel Bank of the Philippines. (As amended by Republic Act No. 1823.)

x x % x zx Before going into the legality and validity of the assessment against the taxpayer, respondent assailed for the first time in its momorandun the power of this Court to take cognizance of the case because the disputed assessment has already become final, demandable and executory by the failure of petitioner to perfect its appeal within the j0-day period provided in Section 11 of Republic Act i, 1125.

The records show that ont March 1, 1963 - Petitioner received hn Pongo 7 lamas Mareh 16, 1963- Petitioner, thru its "auditors, led with - aA - jj eS OE

DEGISION -

CTA CASE MO, 1445 the respondent a letter rotes or contest- ! ng the assessment.

June 5, 1963 = Petitioner, thru its auditors, received the respondent's letter dated Mey 2%, 1963

a Fequest for

Sctletten or protest against the assessment.

July 2, 1963 <= Petitioner filed with respondent a r st for reconsideration of the decision.

July 2, 1963 - Petition for Neview was filed in this Court.

Respondent contends that the 30-day period provided in Seetion 14 of Republic Act No. 1125, regarding appeal from the deoision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to the Court of Tax Appeals, should start from March 1, 1963 to Mareh 16, 1963 and again from June 8, 1963 to July 6, 1963, or a total of forty-three (43) days. On the basis of respondent's computation, this Court has no juris- diction over the case because the petition for review was filed beyond the statutory period of thirty (30) dayee ‘On the other hand, petitioner contends that the essessment and/or demand of respondent, which was received by the former on March 1, 1963, does not have the effect of a decision on a disuted assease ment and, therefore, the counting of the 30-day period should start from June 5, 1963, and not March 1, 1963, when petitioner received respondent's letter of denial on the disputed assessment. |

DECISION

CTA CASE WO. 1445 by / Under Section 7(1) of Republic Act Bo. 1125, the Court of Tax Appeals is given exelusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal “decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessment, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Interna] Revenue Code.“ And pursuant to Seetion 11 of the same Act, any person or entity adversely affected by the decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should appeal to this Court vithin thirty (30) days after the receipt thereof, and if the assessment of the Commissioner, or his decision thereon, is not appealed within the aforesaid period, such assessment becomes final, demandable and executory, (Reps of the Phil. v. Del Rosario, 1-10460, March 11, 1959; Uy Ham v. Rep. of the Phil. 1-13809, Oct. 20, 19493 Rep. of the Phil. v. Magalona, 1-15002, Sept. 30, 19605 Rep. of the Phil, v. Albert, 1+12996, Dec. 28, 19615 Rep. of the Phil. v. Manila Port Ser- vice, i-18208, Nov. 27, 1964.) However, if the assess- ment is contested or the taxpayer files a request for | reconsideration thereof and the assessment ig modified or revised, the last unrevised or unmodified decision is appealable. ‘(Pangasinan Transportation Co. vs Blaquera, [-13101, Apr. 29, 1960; Villamin v. Coll., 111536, Oct. 31, 19605 Ker & Co. ve Colle, 1+12396, Jan. 31, 1962.). If the request for reconsideration | 4g denied or the original assessment is maintained, » og

DECISION -

CTA CaS WO, thas 5 as in the present case, the appealable decision is the decision denying the request for reeonsideration ow @eancellation. An assessment beeomes a “disputed assessment” where the taxpayer questions the legel- ity thereof and asks that the same be reconsidered or cancelled. ‘he decision on the request for re consideration is the decision on the disputed assess- ment which 4s appealables \(St. Stephen's Assn. v. Colley 55 OcG. 22433 Baguio Country Club, v. Colle, 1~11419, Apre 22, 19593 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cobn v. Colle, 116683, Jan. 31, 19625 see also phil. Planters Investment Co. v. Comms, ©. T. Ae Case Noe 1266, Nove 11, 1962.) Since the decision of the re- spondent dated May 21, 1963 denying the request of the petitioner for the reconsideration or cancellation of the assessment was reeeived by the latter only on June 8, 1963, it follows that the filing of the petition for review on July 6, 1963 was within the statutory period of thirty days, ‘his Court has therefore the jurisdiction to take cognisance of the present appeal, The petitioner, a emesis corporation otgueiacs in 1937, 18 principally engaged in the importation and sale of whisky, wines, liquors and distilled spirits. its original subseribed and paid capital “was P500,000,00, Its capital of #500,000,00 was reduced to ®250,000,00 in 1950 with the approval of " the Securities and Exchenge Commission but the re- 10 DECISION . | GTA CASE NO, 1445 | 6 éuetion of the capital was never implemented. On June 21, 1958, petitioner's capital was increased to §1,00G,= 000.00 with the approval of the said Commission. Respondent's investigating examiners found that, as of December 31, 1957, petitioner had an undistributed surplus of 9636593-42 ineluding general reserves of P208,000,00, Deduecting the latter amount from the former leaves a balance of #+26,93%s32 which was com sidered an unreasonable accummlation of surplus subjeet to the surtax imposed by Section 25 of the Tax Code. The accumulated earnings tax under Section 25 of the Tax Code is a tax on obnoxious hoarding as distinguished ‘from harmless aceummlation, If the corporation is availed of for the purpose of avoiding the income tax on its stockholders by permitting the gains end profits of the corporstion to accumlate instead of being divided or distributed among its stockholders, then the eccumlated earnings tax applies to the corporation. The touchstone of liability is the purpose behind the accumulation of the surplus or profits and not the consequences of the ecoumulation, (Sank Investment Co., 34 B. Us As 7325 Lew of Federal Income Taxation, Mertens, Vol. 7, ps 347s) As a practical matter, liability for the tax under Sece- tion 25 of the Tax Code hinges on whether the corporation has accumulated the earnings in excess of the reason- able needs of the business. The question of unreason- able or reasonable accumation of profits or surplus 14

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO, 1445 7 is one of fact. ‘The word “reasonable“ is a relative term. at would be reasonable in one situation or for one business, might be clearly unreasonable in anothers,\ ‘Cailliam ©. de Mille Productions, ines, 30 B. T. A. 826, Wilkerson Daily Corp, Ltde, 42 B. Ts As 1266, aff'd 125 ¥ £247 998 LOCA 9th, 194275 Lew of lederal Income Tak- ation, Mertens, Vole 7, pe 360). Among the factors to be considered ares i Some of the more important facts conditions, circumstances and pro Ss re- quiring careful study and analysis to deter- Ei" she purpose" cor wtdet tae sorgorel purpose e corporation was formed; (2) 8 s s sto the advances or Scone made 0o Ghedalaese 1% ifen oF Ghvi~ dends val : : ' rete d a ional working assets, such as larger inventories, rurchase of additional yaad holders would not have resulted in surtax because of individual losses or small ine dividuel incomes; (@) the stock is widely held in small blocks; (9) the financial eonditien of the bu ss eat the close of the year; and (10) all other factors lie cable in any particuiar case which be considered by a normally prudent business- man in the conduct ef a busines In other words, the determination of distribu- teat depending tpan sat ee eonaeeaane wae fae epon eco ons ppt ne: omen of each cular Cases (Statement in 1949 of U. S. Treasury vepe rtment the administration of Seetion 102 the S&S. Internal Reveme Code of 19393 underscoring supplied.)

/ tammmts «ites preiastenn ot tena ee National Internal Revenue Code were bodily lifted from 12 *

DECISION «

CTs mo. 1415 Seetion 102 of the ". 5. Internal Keverme Code of 1939, ineluding the regulations issued in connection theree with, it would be proper to resort to applicable cases decided by the American Federal courts for guidance and enlightenment in resolving similar legal and feotual issues, \ Respondent contends that petitioner has accumilated “earnings beyond the reasonable needs of its business because the average ratio of cash dividends declared and paid by petitioner from 1947 to 1957 was 40.33% of the total surplus evailable for distribution at the end of each calendar year. On the other hand, petitioner contends that in 1957 it distributed 100% of its net eernings efter income tex end part of the surplus for prior years.

Por a clearer insight inte the dividend policy of the petitioner, hereunder is an analysis of its net income, cash dividends and earned surplus for the years 1946 to 1957 (Exh. C=1)s

Percentage of Dividends

Net Income Total Cash to Net In- |

After Income Dividends come After of Sarned SESE,S—“( ie ~aurnlus..

® 61 0.66 #200, 000,- ae. oes # 10%.81 H 0 023°799.87 360, o i 568 1548 oe 1 re) 51 931-83 375, 000,~ ase 1 335,058. 200,000,« 1950 3934658.09 600, 000.— 1gortis Re site | 1982 196 i ro soo ones. (Eso 2b 9 sik 195 Fale 200;000,- 41 “Be 301s 4 Ga Heme a fe “3 :

DECISION -

CTA CASE No, 1415 9 Respondent’s view that petitioner had not distrilmted substantial eash dividends to its stockholders from 1947 to 1957 to warrant the imposition of the 25% surtax is net justified. While respondent cleins that only 40.33% — of the total surplus available for distribution at the end of each calendar year was actually distributed by the petitioner to its stockholders, the tabulated figures, supra, show that the averaze percentage of cash dividends distributed was 55.77% for a period of 11 years from 1946 to 1957.‘ The difference lies in the interpretation of the terms profits or surplus subject to the 25% surtax. Respondent submits that the accumulsted earnings tax should be besed on 25% of the total surplus available at the end of each calendar year while petitioner maintains that the 25% surtex is imposed on the total surplus or net income for the year after deducting therefrom the | income tax due. On this score, we sustain the inter- pretation of petitioner. | An eminent professor of taxation, Dr. Nobert 5, Holeman of the New York University, discussed the ques- tion at issue as follows:

a ecaulhe tasuen oF Ayoenes ge the te be listed in next wean Sie ue sum of the dividends eae dedu defined in Section 531, and the accumleted eredit ustments" ae income | and. incomes var excess profits taxes of Siooten peeuathien and possessions of the United States (to the extent not ble as a deduction under Section 164(b) (6) acerued during the 14

DECISION «

CTA CAGE MO. 1415 10 taxable y Year} charitable contributions | te the ae that they had been disallowed under the iene limitations of Sec- - tion 170(b) (2)5 lesses from sales - s of capital assets during the taxable year which are disallowed . deductions under Section 1211(a) RB excess of the net long-term ca 1 gain ever the net short-term capi loss for — bey # Ey without Py ea ss carryover Seetion 1212) minus the taxes attributable to this aoesee) and the deduction des- eribed in Section 601 (rele to bank for corporations ded in Part VIII paneer Seetion ) of Sub-chapter B Section 241 and following, relating to the deduction for dividends received by corporations, ete.); the net ting loss deduction p ded in Section 172;

the capital loss carryover provided in . Section 1212.

may _7ie-accimy a — ease of 6 corporation other than a mere holding or investment company, the credit is the reasonably retained portion of the yeer's earnings minus the excess of net long-term capital gain over net shorte term capital loss es Re 8 are compu the dividends paid deduct- ions as defined in Section 561.

(The Tax On Accumnlated Barnings, 1956 @deyg De 7) In the light of a long line of judicial deei- sions in the United States, construing identical provisions found in Section 25 of our Tax Code, the consistent substantial distribution of cash dividends by the petitioner is indicative of the view that the Manile Wine Merchants, Ine. was not formed for the purpose of preventing the imposition of income tax upon ite shareholders. (See Korricks, Inc., 53, 096 : 15

DECISION

CTA CASE NO. 1815 1 Peli Memo TC, 1153 TC Memorandum Decisions, Yol. 22) Baker & Co., Inc. %3,4%36 P-H Memo TC, 1943 TC Memo- . Pandum Decisions, Vol. 123 Metal Mouldings Corporation, 43,067 Pell Memo TC, 1943 TC Memorandum Decisions, Vole 123 J. Le Goodman Furniture Co. 11 TC 530; Uni- versal Steel Co., § TC 6273 The lammon Nanufa,turing Cog Inde, $2, 0%} P-H Memo TCy Hansen Baking Co., Ince, 53,214 Pall Nemo TC{ Gazette “ublishing Co. v. Self, 4 AFTR 10333 C. R. Burr & Co., Ince, 40,250 BTA Memo Decisions, 1943.) | Another basis of respondent in asveasing peti- tioner for accumulated earnings tax is its substantial investment of surplus or profits in unrelated busi- ness. These investments ere itemized es follows:

1. Acme Commercial Co., Inc. P 27,501.00

2. Unton Insurance ety of Canton ag Sh

Wack Wack Self & Country

Club —

A

As to the investment of ?27,501.00 made by peti- tioner in the Aone Commercial Co,, Inc., Mr. Ne Be Me Hawkins, president of the petitioner-corporstion (Exhibit “D"), explained as follows:

The first item consists of shares of Acme sequined in 947 and which the 4 equired - the said years, we thought it prudent _ to invest in a business which patronizes . use As a supermarket, Acme Commercial Coe,y Ince is one of our best customers. The investment has en to be benefi- cial to the st s of this Company.

DECISION -

CTA CASE 1415

12 4s an example, the received eash dividends in 1961 totaling 916,875.00 which was included in its income tax return for the said year.

| As to the investments of petitioner in Union Insurance Society of Canton and Weck Wack Golf Club . in the sums of #1,145.76 and F1.00, respectively, the same official of the petitioner-corporetion stated that (Sxhibit “B*)s The second and fourth items are small amounts which we believe would not affect this case substantially. As regards the Union Insurance Society of Canton shares, this was a pre-war investment, when Wise the said insurance firm were common stock- ° ine vested in Wise Sos, Inc. but in- vited Manila Wine flerchants, Inc. to buy & few of its shares, /eameaetis or customarily, investments in un- related enterprises are not deemed to be for the reasonable needs of the business. (J. NM. ferry & Co. ve “ommissioner, 120 F. £287 123 9th Cir., 19417.) But investments in affiliates may. represent a proper utilisation of surplus, (Walkup Drayage & Warehouse Cos, et. als, Te Co Memo, Docket No. 327102, June 25, 1945.) Investments in customers are likewise «e recognised need of the business, (Saker & Cos, Inosy T. ©. Memo, Docket fo. 111870, Septe 23, 1943.) In the light of the pronouncements of the court and the declarations of "r. ". i. 5. Hawkins, we hold that the said investments are harm- less accummlation of surplus end, therefore, not . £9

DECISION ~

CTA CASE 1445

13 subject to the 25% surtax provided in Section 25 of the Tax Code.) | As to the U. 5. A. Treasury Bonds amounting to 83475217250, Mr. Hawkins explained as follows (ix- hibit “B*)s we decided to utilise part of gs money as reserve our ti end to take care of future the of our own office build- ing and bottling plant.

At that time, we believed that a rage reserve abroad would useful wi maturity and approxima interest, with the face value of 175 5- 000,03, U.S. Treasury Bills are ea convertible into cash and for the seid reason they may be better classified as cash rather than investments, ~

CTA CASE 9415

1% - Then in 1959 when the Company was already more than 60% /1lipino-owned, we commenced looking for a suitable location and then finally in 1961, we bought the main lot with an old building on Otis it., Paco our present site, for #665,000.00, Adjoin- — smaller lots were bought later, After the purchase of the main property, we pro- ceeded with the remodelling of the old build- ing and the construction of additions — were completed at a cost of £143,896. bea Spril, 1962.

In view of the needs of the business of this Compeny and of the purchase of the Otis lets and the construction of the im provements thereon, most of its available funds including the Ireasury bills had been utilised, mut in spite of the seid expenses the Company consistently declared dividends to its stocke holders. ‘he Treasury Billa were liquidated on February 19, 1962.

Respondent determined and contends that in 1957 petitioner-corporation was “availed of for the pure pose of preventing the imposition of the surtax upon its shareholders,” under Section 25(a) of the Tax Codey by permitting ita earnings and profits “to ao- cumulete beyond: the reasonable needs of the business.” If such were the case then, under Section 25(¢) of the Tax Code, guura, such fact is determinative of the purpose to avoid the imposition of the surtax upon the shareholders, unless petitioner proves the contrary by a clear preponderance of evidence. (See Whitney Claim 936.)

whether or not petitioner permitted its earnings and profits to accumulate beyond the reasonable needs of the bus ness and was “availed of" for the prohibited purposes are questions of fact to be determined from all evidence. (Nelvering v. National Grocery Cos, 30%

: 19 «(S

—

EEE —

DECISION~ i. .

CTA CASE 1415

15 U. S. 2623 Helvering ve Chicago Stockyards Co., 316 U. Se. 693.) Consequently, “decided cases are not decisive and have comparative value only." (World Pub, Co. v. United States, 109 7 24. 186.) | It is true that the “determination of the reason- able needs of the business is, an the first place, a task for the officers and directors of a corpora- tion." (Crawford County Printing and Publishing Co., 97 T. Co 1404.) However, petitioner's cumlative sur- plus at the end of 1957 is so large that there is no reason for the retention of the current earnings to finance the reasonable needs of the business. ‘4s cor~ reetly stated by the court, “in determining whether the taxpayer fer a certain year accunulated profits beyond the reasonable needs of its business, we must cousider not only the undistributed earnings ov omatite tenth the assets of the company and their liquidity, the expenditures necessary to be made to meet its finan- elal obligations and to carry on its successful operee tion." (Southland Industries, inte, T. C. Memo, Pocket No. 3387, Oct. 31, 19463 underscoring supplied.) / Sinee petitioner has funds to invest in 1951, when it purchased U. 5. Treasury Bonds on May 31, 1951 with the face value of US8175,000,00, it may be said that the petitioner has money beyond the reasonable needs of the business. “The purchase of foreign bonds were in no way related to petitioner's business of importing and selling wines, whisky, 20 DECISION .

CTA CAGE 1445

16 liquors and distilled spirits. (See Helvering v. National Grocery Co., 30% U. 5. 262.) It is clear, therefore, that an investment in unrelated enterprise ' ig not deemed te be for the reasonable needs of the business. (7. HN. ferry & Co. v. Commissioner, 120 - W2a) 123 {9th Cir. 19417~) Petitioner contends that it mast have sufficient gash available for payment of internal reveme stamps to be affixed to its importations of articles subject to specific taxes. The internal revenue stamps needed by petitioner in 195%, 1955, 1956 and 1957 amount- Od to P1910 495.09, 195365409439, 9659,103282 and 2993,265e61, respectively. We find no merit in peti- tioner's contention. There was no need for investe ing in U. 5. Treasury bonds to enable petitioner to pay specific taxes on its importations of wines and liquors. in fact, from May 31, 1951, when the '. 5. Treasury Bonds were acquired by the petitioner, to February 15, 1962, when the same were liquidated, the said investment in foreign bonds amounting to 2347 217.50 was never utilized by the petitioner for the payment of internal revenue stamps on imported articles subject to specific taxes.

As to the statement of Mr. Hawkins in Sxhibit “BY regarding the expansion program of the petitioner by purchasing a lot and building of its own, we find no justifiable reason for the retention in 1957 or thereafter of the ". 5. Treasury Bonds which were purchased in 1951. liven if the petitioner needs a 21

DECISION ~

CTA CASE 1415

17 .

lot and building because of the alleged expiration in 1957 of its lease contract with the owner of the building housing its business, yet, at that time, petitioner was not qualified under the law to own real property in the Vhilippines because less than 60% of its capital stock are owned by Filipinos.

/ Moreover, if there was any thought for the pur- chase of a lot and building for the needs of peti- tioner's business, the corporation may not with impunity permit its earnings te pile up merely be~ cause at some future time certain outlays would have to be made. Profits may only be accumulated for the reasonable needs of the business, and implicit in - this is the further requirement of a reasonable tine. | On this question, Dr, Robert 5, Holaman, Professor of Taxation in New York University, in his book entitled “The Tex On Aecumuiated Barnings” stated as followss - Under the so- have invented for their Sebpinecbathen” eof surplus under the 1939 Cose, there hat to be an immediate need for the funds in order to justify the retention of earn- ings. in some —- surtax yas mated for a number of years, there was no reason for retention in the taxable year; there was still py time to before expendi accumulate earnings - ture could be made. (Wobld Publi Co, _ VW» United States, 169 F. 24 186 (1 Cire, 1948). Colonial Ammsement Corp e . T. e@ Memo, Docket #13257, July 27, 1998.

' 22

EE

DECISION ~.

CTA CASE 1415

18 Considering the period that have elapsed from the time the sum of ®347,217.50 wes invested in U. S. Treasury Sonds in 1991 and the expenses in- curred 4 fon tne lot and building of petitioner in 1962, 1t is clear that the so-called “inmediscy test" invented by the U. 5. courts for their interpretation of the surtex on unreasonable accumlation of surplus under Section 102 of the 0. 5. Internal Revenue Code - OF 1939 has not been satisfied by « clear prepon= deranes of evidence es required by Section 25(¢) of our Tax Code. .

The purchase of |. 5. Treasury Donds was in no / ~ way necessary or related to the liquor and wine busi- ness of petitioner. It can, therefore, be said that petitioner's investment in foreign bonds was not for the reasonable needs of its business. Ina similar case involving the purchase of government obligations, the courts of the United States held as follows:

ag ha _—— thereto was in no way necessar sary to ye an perboard and bisiness, 4 ~s ite statements that the a fee me we were interested in arives. oe The princi vaneed for the purchase of a security business apert from the pap ss a per 9 and twine busines those ses and debts in no way benef latter bu (Jaco 20 2.6. 206 419 aff'd, cob knot Tne Cire, 1 o /) Petitioner contends that the corporation was not formed or availed for the purpose of preventing the imposition of income tax upon its shareholders be-

DECISION -

CTA CASE 1415

; 19 cause the petitioner is not a closed corporation but a publielyeheld corporation and that its shares of stock are openly sold in the steek exchange. On this point, Dr. Robert 5. Holaman stated as follows: the 1954 Code, the Ways and Means Com mittee of the House of Representatives ° had sought to exempt publicly-held ae te from this tax. The very fact that this provision was deleted from the final language of the law is an em phatie reminder that Congress decided that publiely-held corporations were a er subject of the legislation. (The on Accumlated Earnings, pp. 5-6.) a / It is to be noted that, under Section 25(e) of the Tax Code, supra, the burden of proof is upon the taxpayer to show by clear preponderance of evidence that the accumilated earnings or profits were for the reasonable needs of the business, | However, petitioner failed to present at the hearing of the Case any witness to rebut the findings of respondent's examiner. Petitioner merely relied on its letters, balance sheets, papers, and documents ettached to the BIR records. We are, therefore, satisfied fron the records that the surplus of #3%7,217.50 which - was invested in U. S. treasury bonds was availed of for the purpose of preventing the imposition of the surtex upon petitioner's shareholders by permitting its earnings and profits to accumulate beyond the reasonable needs of the business. The fact that in 1957 petitioner declared and paid eash dividends of 1008 or more of its net earnings or profits argues

DECISION -

CTA CASE 1415

20 against the retention of surplus in the amount of #347,217,50 which was invested in unrelated business. Accordingly, we find petitioner subject to the 25% _ gurtax for 1957 in the amount of 986,804.38 computed as follows:

Unreasonable accumulation of surplus 25% surtax due thereon Ftetagiats In resumé, we are of the opinion that the (1) corporation was not formed for the purpose of - préwenting the imposition of s surtax on shareholders when it declared and paid yearly substantial cash dividends to its stockholders; (2) petitioner, being a pubdlicly-held corporstion, was not formed for the interdicted purpose but it was gyailed of for the said purpose; (3) purchase of U. &, Treasury Bonds made by petitioner in 1951 was an investment in unrelated business and, therefore, the corporstion was sveiled of for the interdicted purposes (+) in vestment of petitioner in customer's business was made for the reasonable needs of petitioner's busi-~ ness; (5) petitioner's vrofits or surplus in U, %. Treasury Bonds, which were retained for an unreason- able length of tine, eannet be for the reasonable needs of the business; and (6) failure of petitioner to prove by clear preponderance of evidence that the accumulated surplus or profit was not evailed of for the interdieted purpose justifies the imposition of the 258 surtex.

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO, 1415 21 IN VIRW OF THE PORRGOING CONSIDEPATIONS, the decision appealed from is hereby modified. "eti- _tdoner is hereby ordered to pay 286,804.38 as 259 surtax. if petitioner fails to pay the said amount within thirty (30) days from the date this decision becomes final, then it shell be subject to interest at the rate of 1% a month. #ith costs against peti- tioner.

SO GRDERED, QUEZON CIYY, February 28, 1966.

Cec ler & ( ALY.

Associate Judge

I CONCURs

1 mania Mo OMALI

Aeting Presiding Judge