® Public of Tiie Philippines Court of Tax Appeals Manl& Consolidated Mines, et al. vs. ~ Commissioner of Internal Revenue

- O.BLI~ Clt THE l'.HlLlt>PIN UilT PF TAX AP.PEALS .

IUN,U,.4 vO SOLIDATED Vii ES, I . • 1 . Petitioner, - versus -

CQWvUS I

ER

F Il TE.

L

REVE ·UE , espondent.,

X -

- ~ ....

- - ,....

- • .,..

-

X

SOLIDATED Viii'S .s, II c .. I etitioner, - versus - cav· JliSSI

E

0

INTE

AL

HEVENUE, Respondent ..

X -

'""" - ..

- - .. - - - .. X C.T . A.

A E NO. 565 C . T •• ~ASE I Oo 578

D

CISION

Upon agreement of the partie sg the above en- titled cases were jointly heard and submitted for decision by the parties involving as they do identical parties and allied issueso Hence , this joint decisiono C.T •• Case Noo 565 is an appe al from the deci- sion of respondent Commis ioner of Internal evenue , dated June 24 , 1958 (Exho A, PPo 205- 207 1 BI1 rec a, C. T. A. 1 o" 565; also marked as Exho 32) assessing and demanding from petitioner Consolidated P ines~ Inco, .

deficiency inc ome taxes for the years l951J 1952, 1953 and 1954, in the amounts of · 15,576.00, l-5,597o001 186,972.00 and ~2ll,802o00 , respectively, or a total amount of ~ 419 » 946.50o C.T. A. CASE 1 Oo 578 is a petition for there - view of the decision on the disputed d ficiency inc ome

DECI IO

.T. A.

C•ses l OSo 565 578 - 2 - tax assessment, dated July 30, 1958 ( xho - 5 1 Po 26, .OI reco;

• T .A.

Oo 578; also marked as xho 35) for the year 1956 only in the sum of - 72,082.00o It appears that the petitioner her ein i s a do- mestic corporation engaged in the mining bu sine sso or the years in question (1951-1954 1 & 1956) , it timely filed it s income tax returns and paid the total amount of ....: 7, 590o 7 9o as inc ome tax on the basis of the net inc omes reported in said returnso

Petitioner's

inc ome tax returns were referred to an examiner of the Bureau of Internal l eve ue for verification and in- vestigation as a result of which ce tain deductions were disallowed and/or alleged unreported inc ome vas addedo Consequently, the respondent i ssued against the petitioner the disputed de iciency inc ome tax as- se sment s under reviewo It should e note that in C. T. • ase

Oo 565

• which covers the years 1951 to 1954; the respondent imposed a 5 ~ surcharge as fraud penalty nut no such surchar e was assessed in C. I . A. Case 1 Oo 578 for the year 1956o In the same order in which they are considered in the de i cie cy income t~x assessme, ts under review , the iteJJ1S which are the subjects of the present c on- troversy are the following l) Partic ipation of enguet Consolidate ining ompany on the net Acc ounts ec ivable at the end c~ each year;

l.JECI IO: - C. T. A.

Cases 1' os . 565 & 578 - 3 - ( 2) Mine Depletion overcharged;

(3 ) Depreciation adju t ments;

( 4) Disallowed audit and le gal fees for t he year 195- only; a d (5 ) Disallowed miscellaneous expenses for the years 1953, 1954, and 1956" For an orderly discussion and de ermination of t he issues in these two cases, we shall consider the above items separ ately " t·u1TI r "J.TIU, Gf B

GUliT C ·-JsOLID TED

Iv1I1 r· G CQv PAHY Oi'-1 THE 1

T

CCCUNT ..

1 ) -C.ci

LL -

he e is no dispute that the petitioner as been filing it s income tax r eturns on the basis of accrued inc orne and expe se s, ut has consistently not provideo.

as a deduction from its gross inc ome for any particular year , any share of its operator, Benguet Consolidated hining Co., in its accounts receivable at the en of each taxable yearo (Memorandum for Petitioner, pp. 84- 85 , CIA reco ~ o . 565;

~ e m orandum for espondent , Po ll9v CTA reco No. 565o) There is also no question that the position of the respondent .with regard to this item i s stated in his examineris memorandum of January 26, 1957, as fol- lows:

11Consolidated Mine s,. Inc" (otherwise referred to as ul\IE.I{) c ons i stently failed to provide , as a deduction from its in c ome~ t he shar e of Jenguet onsolidated Mining ompanv (otherwise referred to as 0 E TOd.j on its ' acc ounts receivable at the close of DB ISION - C. I .A.

Cases ~os . 565 & 578 - 4 - the calendar year.

The mine fields of the 6wner corporation are subject to a contract of operation in which the con- tract provides that the Operator will share 5~o of the net proceeds after de- ducting all expenseso

Consolidated Mines ~

Inc.» files its inc ome, for tax purposes , on accrual basis , but leaves out the pro- vision for the share of the Operator on the receivables .

The expenses pertaining thereto are taken up as deduction from the operation of the next succeeding year when the receivables are actually col- lected and the share of the Operator is actually paid out . n (Exha 8 1 Po 123, BI1 rec. , TA Noo 565o) The petitioner c laims that the procedure it ha s followed with regard to the participation of Benguet Consolidated Mining Coo , is 11the only logical and prac - tical method which it can apply by virtue of the parti- cular and peculiar provisions of its operating contract with the operator of it s mining properties" , citing paragraphs X and IV of the operating agreement, dated July 9 , 1934 (Exho L) , which provide as foll'ows. ~~x .

fter BENGUET has been fully reim- bursed for its expenditure s, advances and disbursements as aforesaid the net profits from the operation shall be divided between BENGUET and ca~SOLIDATED share and share al i e , it being understood however, that the net profits as the term is used in this agreement shall be computed by deducting from gross inc ome all operating expenses and all disbursements of any nature whatso- ever as may be made in order to carry out the ter ms of this agreement . ~ tl IVo All payments due CCNSOLIDATED by BE GUET under the terms of this agreement with re spect to expenditures made and ore settlement s -received during the preceding y- calendar month, shal l be payable on or be- f\ fore the twentieth day of each month. 11 \j • \ DECI IQ~ - C. T . A.

Ca ses ~os. 565 ~ 578 - 5 - To our mind , a mere reading of the above quoted provisions of the agreement will readily show that there is nothing therein which could have prevented ' .

I

the petitioner from deducting at the end of each calen- dar year the share of Benguet Consolidated ~ining Co. on the accounts receivable o And on this point, we quote with approval the following opinion of petitioner's auditors, llada ,Dacanay & ssociates, as contained in its letter dated April 22, 1954, to the respondent Com- missioner of Internal evenue:

uThe operating contract between the Con ~ solidated Mines, Inc .p and Benguet Consolidated ining Oc , provides that they SHA ar 50- 50

BASIS I

THE

" ES3 F rlECEIPT

OVE

DISBU. SE- •1E TS (Par. , of the Agreement) . I It is sub- mitted that the operator, Benguet Consolidated 1ining o., has to share with the accounts re~ ceiva le minus the trade and accrued expenses and those due to hauling contractors which should be considered to determine the net re - ceivable subject to the share - and- share- alike- basis when actually collected.

In our opinion, the Consolidated ~ines , Inc., should not pay the corresponding income tax on the uncollected acc ounts during the period for which the ope- rator {Benguet Consolidated hl~ning Coo) would share ali e in the excess~of receipts over dis- bursements when actually collected. The -account- ing system of the Consolidated kines , Inc. , ~s also based on the CC VAL BASI~ and it is there- fore but consistent and logical that the share of the operator as shown above shall be excluded from the computation of the net tax liability of our client. 11 (Exh. G, pp. 23- 25, BI rec.,

CTA

~o . 565; also marked as Exh. 6. ) It is true that the said letter of Ollada , Dacanay & Associates , Certified Public Accountants , was not authorized , and later disowned, by the petitioner. However, considering that the opinion expressed therein is correct, we take it and adopt the same as our own

D CI I

1 - C. T. A.

Cases

~os . 565 & 578 - 6 for purposes of disposing of the instant question of deduction from petitioner rs income tax returns of the participation of Benguet Consolidated Mining Company on the net accounts receivable .

Therefore 1 we believe and so hold that the ruling of respondent Commissioner of Internal evenue with regard to the participation of Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., on the net acc ounts receivable is in acc ordance with law and mu ~t be af- ~ firmedo viii E DEPLETI 'IJ OVE.

HAt GED -

The petitioner has consistently charged off from its gross income mine depletion at the rate of loOO per ton of chrome ore mined and sold. However , the respondent contends that c onsidering the correct amount to be depleted and the estimated ore deposit of peti- tionerfs mine , the unit depletion charge should only be } . 59189 , and the petitioner is therefore overcharging mine depletion., Hence, the respondent insists that the petitioner is u der- stating its income and the deficiency assessments with ,regard to this item is in order. ie find the contention Of the respondent to be meritorious.

In computing the net income, depletion of mines is .allowed as a deduction from the gross in- c ome by Section 30 (g) (1) of the Tax Code which provide s in part as follows:

u(g) Depletion .Qf. oil and .9.2..§. wells and mines;

"(1) In general.- x x x

(B) in the

case of mines , a reasonable allowance for de -

DE I~I

.ToA.

Cases r OSo 565 & 578 - 7 - pletion thereof not to exceed the mar et value in the . ine of the product thereof ~ whic h has been mined and sold , durin the year for which the return and c omputation are made .

The allowances shall be made under rules and regulations to e pres- cribed by the Secretary of inance~ Pro- v ided , That when the allowances shall equal the capital investedi x x x no further allowance shall be made . 11 And in general t the depletion formula -that should be followed in c omputing the unit depletion charge or the rate of depletion per unit, i.e ., ton, feet , etc., is as follows' !E OF D PLET I '" PEL UNIT

= OF P GXC T Mil-JED

. D

Gill

In the case at bar , the dispute centers on the correct amount to be depleted and the estimated nu ber of tons of ore deposits in petitionervs mine . As to the amount to be depleted, the petitioner used ~4 , 238 , 974 . 57 as the cost of its mine property , includ- ing the development expenditu es, based on its balance sheet as fo December 3lj 1946.

(Exhs. I & I - 1)

How-

ever i we find this figure not reliable and c onc lusive. It cannot be taken as an accurate statement of the de- pl etable amount inasmuch as it is based merely on an e stimate of Mr.

• P.

lood, then treasurer of the pe- titioner corporation.

(Exh. 38, pp. 50- 52, CTA rec.

l Oo 565o) loreover 1 it appears from petitioner 's balance , sheet as of December 31 , 1957 (Exhs. 1, 1-A, ' 1- B, p. 48 , T rec. r o. 565) , that this amount of r-4, 238 , 974.57 DECISIU - C. T. • Ca se s l . Olil o 565 & 578 - 8 - c onsists of the following items , namely:

~Development

Cost -

P-2 ~ 500 , 000.,00 11 and under the suspense acc ount 11Mining Properties ( ubject to adjustment for war lossis) - ~1 , 738 2 974 . 5 7 u .

If the mining prop~rties in the amount of ~1,738~974o57 were subject to adjust- ment for war losses , as in fact the petitioner actually incutred losses during the war , there can be no justi- fiable reason to warrant its restoration ,. in full , to the total amount to be. depleted.

To do so, would allow the petitioner to rec over the cost of the assets des- • troyed during the war by over-c harging depletion. But it is now a settled rule in this jurisdiction that war losses are deductible ·only in the .year in which they are incurred (Cu Unjieng Sons , Inca vs~ Board of Tax ppeals ,

Go •

~o . L- 6296 , ept" 29J 1956; Hilado vs . Collector of Internal evenue , Go • 1' 0. L-94,08 , Octo 31, 1956; 53 OG 2481) , and cannot , and should not , be the subject of depletiono n the other hand, the depletable amount of ~2 » 646 , 878 o 44 which wa s used by the respondent in com- puting the rate of depletion , was a result of the in- vestigation and verification of the records of the pe- titioner which was Gonducted by an internal revenue agento (ExhG 31 , PPo 197- 201 , BI rec o, CIA I Oo 565) And the respondent in arriving at the total amount of 2, 6561 878o44 which should be subjected to depletion considered the following items which were taken from the books of the petitioner~ DECI IC.N - C. T a • Ca ses os. 565 & 578 - 9 - ssessment oo oooo oo oo••••······ ~ Development •••o••o•oo•o••o oo • o Exploration •••••o••o•••••••o•• Diamond Drilling o•ooooo•• •• o•• 34,092.12 61, 484. 63 13,966.62 22, 335. 07 ~2, 646 , 8780 44 (See .l:::.xho 31» pp. 197- :6:>1 , BI rec. ~ CTA No. 565c) It should be noted that th~ petitioner never dir ectly questioned the above figure s adopted by the respondent.

At most , the petitioner made a general assertion that the "figure of ~2 ~ 646 1 878 . 44 which the examiner would use as the Masinloc Mine Property Cost and Development is patently inadequate'1 o ( Exh. 29, PPo 188-195, Bil rec., CTA No. 565) Considering fur- ther that the finding of the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is presumptively correct~ we hold that the depletable amount is only ~2, 646 , 878 . 44 , and not ~A , 238 , 974. 57 as c laimed by the petitioner. With regard to the estimated ore deposits , the petitioner claims that the same should be pla ced at 4 , 156, 888 while the respondent contends that it should be 4 , 471,892 tons , or a difference of 315 ,004 tons . To resolve this question , it shall suffice to state that the petitioner has admitted that 11by the year 1956, it had already charged off its entire depletion mine cost and development of r4»238 ,973. 57 (except the sum of i82, 464 . 63 which was charged off in the year 1957) at the rate of :..:1. 00 per ton of ore•1 ( 11lemorandum for Peti- tioner 1 p. 82, CTA reco , No. 565). In the year 1958 , t77 DECISIOl: - C. T .A.

'ases Noso 565 & 578 - 10 the petitioner was ·already carrying in its books , the mine and mine development cost at the nominal cost of ..

:1900, and at the same time 1 it reported to its stock- holders that 11With world trade and production QD. the g£- swing 1 your company (the peti~ioner) has every reason to look forward to increased gains during the incoming year"~' ( 1959) o (Annual Report of Consolidated Mine s , InCo ; for the year 1958, marked as Exho - 11; under- scoring suppliedo) In short, in l957i the petitioner had already mined and sold more than 4,321 ,438 tons, or more than its estimate -of its or·e deposit. To our mind, this conclusively shows that the figure of 4, 471 , 892 tons used by the respondent was not only reasonable but very conservative and liberal in favor of the petitioner. Therefore, the r ate of depletion or the unit depletion charge used by the respondent is correct and his find- ing of over-charging depletion must be sustained.

DEP

CIATIO!'J - "lith regard to the depreciation disallowed by the respondent Commissioner of Intern~l Revenue , it shall suffice to state that the taxpayer herein failed to present sufficient evidence to justify its claim for said deduction.

Inasmuch as the allowanc·e of the de - ductions from the gross income is a matter of legisla- tiv~ grace ( wertens, Law of Federal Income TaxatioR~ 1942 Edition, Volo 4, PPo 4- 5) , and the burden of proof \ '•

DECivi

- ~ - C. J: . A.

Cases Nos . 565 & 578 - 11 - is on the taxpayer to sustain the depreciation deduc- tion , Sec o 109 ~ fe vo neg . r·oo 2) ; we hold that the disallowance by the respondent Commissioner of Internal rtevenue of the depreciation deduction c laimed by the petitioner is in acc ordance with law. 1.

. ·-r lD LEGAL 'E£;:) - In this jurisdiction , it is already settled that p o essional es paid to acc ountants and lawyers are deductible from the gross inc Od12 iu c Ci!tput ing the net i c ameo (~oll e ctor of Internal revenue vs. Phil . Edu - cation Co., G ... l'o . L- 8505 , Ivlay 30, 1956; 54 CG 2499.) In the instant c ase~ the audit and legal fees disallowed by the Commissioner o Internal hevenue is in the amount of i30 , 000. 00 for the year 1953o

There

is no question that the said audit and legal expenses were actually incurred by the petitioner (see Exhs. " - 1 to M- 7) whose gross income for the same year under re - view was :..-14, 141, 853. 67.

(Exh. 0 - 1 , Po 12, Bix rec . ;

CIA ~oo 565) And we find and so hold that the respon- dent Commissioner of Internal rievenue should have allowed the said expenses as deductions from petitio er vs gross income inasmuch as they are necessary and reasona le expense s paid or incurred in carrying on the business o the petitioner.

MI.SCELLANECXJS

PENSES -

The amounts of the miscellaneous expenses which were disallowed by the respondent Commissioner of In- ternal evenue are as follows:

DE I

0 ' - C. T . A.

Cases Nos. 565 & 578 1953 - - 1954 = 1956 - - 12 - - - - ... .. 39 , 081 . 20 - - - - 20,05 .oo e have carefully examined the evidence presented by the taxpayer herein with regard to these disputed miscellaneous expe ses, and we find and so hold that the following expenses paid or incurred by the petitioner should have been allowed by the respondent as deductions from the gross income:

For the year 1953:, .

The whole amount of :,·3o.oco.oo (see Exhs . 1 1- l to ~i -4) For the year 1954:

The sum of ~: 25 , 6CO. 00 only 1 paid to or itemized as follows:

Vo c . del d.osario ------- r'lO,OCO~OO (Exhs . I - 1 to - 3) alvador Santiago ------- ~ 9 ,000.00 ( ~xhs.

~ -4 (5.

-5)

Custodio Villaba --------

~ 6, 500.00 (Exh.

- 6) vialacaf\.ang Christma s

Festival -------------- ~·

100.00 =---=.;:::;..:..= Total ------- i 25 , 6CO. OO The balance of ~13 ,481.20 of the disallowed expenses for the year 1954 cannot be granted as deductions for lack of any supporting paper or evidence. .· (See Ex h. l , also arked as Exh. 8- 1 Po 85 ,. BIR rec ., ; CIA I o. 565. ) For the year 1956:

The amount of ·2, 460. 00 which r .epresents the one- month salary christmas bonus paid to some of the employees DECISIOl-J - C. T. A.

Cases Nos. 565 & 578 ~ - 13 - of the petitioner should be allowed as a deduction from the gross income .

( ee Exhs . 0- 1 0- 2) \ ith regard to the balance of 17p590o00 of the disputed miscellaneous expenses 1 we affirm the action of the respondent Commissioner of Internal evenue inasmuch as the petitioner herein failed to prove substantially that the said expenses were actually incurred and are legally deductible expenses.

(See Exh. 0, p. 2, BI rec. ; CIA No. 578. )

Je note that , except for the sum of 100.00 which the petitioner contributed in 1954 to the Ma lacanang Christmas Festival and therefore deductible as a chari- table contribution under ection 30(h) of the Tax Code , and the amount of ~2 ; 460 . 00 which was paid in 1956 as a salary christmas bonus and hence also deductible under Section 30(a) of the Tax Code , all the other allowable expenses are in the nature of audit and legal fees or expenses .

s stated above 1 in this jurisdiction , it is an established principle in taxation that professional fees paid to accountants and lawyers are deductible from the gross inc orne .

(Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Phil. Education Co., supra . )

{ e therefore hold and so declare that all the disputed miscellaneous expenses mentioned above which are in reality audit and legal fees or expenses should be deducted from the gross income in c omputing the net income for the years under review pur-. suant to Section 30(a) of the Tax Code.

I

DECISI O

- C. T. A.

Case s I os. 565 & 578 ~ THE 50:6 FAAUD- PEi'-lALTY - - 14 = The petitioner also disputes the impos ition of the fifty per cent ( 50~ ) surc harge which wa s assessed by the respondent pursuant to the provisions of Sec- tion 72 of the Tax Code .

The petitioner contends that the imposition of the surchar e pr fraud penalty i s unwarranted and without basis .

' 'e agree with the contention of the petitioner. The question of fraud i s a question of facto The re- cor ds of the instant case show that the fact s and cir• · cumstances surrounding the filing;,of .,- inc orne tax returns - 4 under r eview do not justify the assessment and collection of the 50% surcharge o (Gutierrez vs . Court of Tax Ap- peals , Go o Noo L- 9738 , \1ay 31 ? 1957; 54 CG 2912. )

As a matter of fact 1 the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue asse s sed the 50)o penalty only in C. T • • Case No. 565 which c overs the years 1951 to 1954 , and did not im- pose the same penalty in C. T.A. Case

o. 578 wh:i.ch in- volves the income tax liability of the petitioner for the year 1956 only.

But we note tha~ the income tax re- turns in both C. T.A. Cases ~os . 565 and 578 were filed under practically the same circumstances . ve believe this support s the conclu sion that the respondent wasv at least , not sure as to whether or not the petitioner will- fully mad and filed false or fraudulent income tax re- turns.

And in case of doubt 1 the same should( be ~ resolVed in favor of the taxpayer , and the fraud surcharge or pen- alty should not be assessed a d demandedo DECISIO• - C. LA.

Cases

os . 565 & 578

STATUTE OF LIMITATIO~S -

- 15 - Having ruled that the petitioner did not willfully make and file fal se or fraudulent inc ome tax returns ~ . it is clear that the right of the respondent Commissioner of Internal levenue to assess against the petitio er the questioned defic ie~cy income taxe~ for the years 1951 and . 1952 has already prescribed.

The respondent assessed the deficiency income taxes for the years 1951 and 1952 only on July 3 , 1958 (Annex Ap Petition for Hevievv), or more than five years from the time the petitioner filed its income tax returns on Ma ch 13 1 1952 (Exh. dg also marked as Sxh. 2, p. 13, Bid rec., CIA l·o. 565) and Iviarch 30, 1953i respectivelyo (cxh. C, also marked as Exh. 3, p. 20$ 3IH rec ., CIA 1'-loo 565). Hence , pursuant to the provisions of Section 331 of the Tax Code , the right to assess the deficiency income taxes c orresponding to said years in the amou' ts of ;.-15,576.00 and ~5 , 596 . 50 , respectively , is already barred by the statute of limitations, and therefore, there is no income tax deficiency for the said years 1951 and 1952. (Sec.

14, L epublic ct No. 1125. )

,: J In resume, we find the petitioner liable for the payment of the amounts of :.107,846.,56 , 134r033o01 and P71,392.82 a~ deficiency income taxes f9r the years 1953, 1954 and 1956R respectively, or the total sum of ~313 , 272o39~ computed as follows:

Gases Nos, 565 & 578 , . = 16-

L223

Net income as per audited Fetutn. .ececcce FI9193, 716.89 Unallowable deductions & additional income3

Participation of Benguet

Consolidated Mining Co, on the net accounts re- ceivable at the end of the year eoeeoes oc cose oe oo 8 # 100,120.10 Depletion overcharged eoeoe 191,184.19 Depreciation adjustment .oe«se_ 93,862.96 . ae Total adjustments eereeroerereseeeoo000080 _ 5, Net income as per investigation eeccceccce Income tax due thereon cesooescceccesdone Bigvrts0u/, v6 Less amount already assessed .wocceeccecve 1,44 6,24 1,0” DEFICIENCY TAX DUB cssccccevcvceseees B107,946,56 ” 1254 Net income as per audit return cecoecccec #3,320,307,68 Unallowable deductions & tmbiansimme incomes

Participation of Benguet

Consolidated Mining Co.

on the net accounts re~ ceivable at the end of the year eoevoesreesecrore0e # 294,659.90 Depletion overcharged ..... 158,669.58 Depreciation adjustment soe 11,878.12 Miscellaneous expenses eose 13,481 ¢890 Total adjustments eeeccesceccoccessceccsee ’ Net income as per investigation seccrvcose Income tax due thereon seccoeveccvesesecce #T,055, 719. ol Less amount already assessed wecsseccccove -DEFICIENCY TAA DUE cocccscccccccccets £ 134,033.01 22536 Net income as per audited return cececsese #11,504,483.97 Unallowable deductions & additional incomes

*Y

DECISI

' - C. To • cases Nos. 565 & 578, - 17 - Depletion overc harged • "...

237, 386o 10 Miscellane ous expenses • • ., • 17 ~ 590 .. 00 Total adjustments •aooogoooqooooooooooo • • ~et income as per ~nve st igation o~ooo~o·• 2~4 , 9 76 0 10 Income tax due thereon ••••••a~•·ooooo• • • Less amount already assessed oooooooooooo Jl-IEJ ~F ~lli , in view of the forego-ing considerations, pet it ioner C.onsolid,ated Mir;G s, Inc. , is hereby ordE:red to pay to the re spondent ommissioner of Internal ' evenue the amount s o ::.-107 1 846.56, ~ 134, CJ .Cl and ·-71 , 392.821 as de i ciencr inc ome taxes for the yea4s 195 1 1954i and 1956, re spective1ys or t he total su. of ~313 , 272 . 9. .,.

J.

not paid i ull within thirty (3 ) days from the date this decision ec o es final and executory, the petitioner shall pay a surc har e of five per cent 51u) of t. e unpaid amount , plu s inte est at the ra :te of ona pe cen-t:.

11 ) a month 1 comput.:;:e,.;, irotu the date this dec i sion become s final until it is paid.

~anila , Aay 6, 196l o

0: ·Glll :·

•