Tag: Geothermal Energy

VAT Refund Claims: Establishing Zero-Rated Sales as a Prerequisite

The Supreme Court has affirmed that a taxpayer claiming a refund or tax credit for unutilized input Value-Added Tax (VAT) must first demonstrate the existence of zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales to which the input VAT can be attributed. Maibarara Geothermal, Inc. (MGI) sought a refund for unutilized input VAT for taxable year 2011, but the claim was denied because MGI had no sales during that period. This ruling underscores the principle that VAT refunds are incentives tied to export activities and requires a clear link between input taxes and zero-rated sales. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the case, its implications, and frequently asked questions.

Unlocking VAT Refunds: Why Zero-Rated Sales are Key for Geothermal Firms

Maibarara Geothermal, Inc. (MGI), a registered VAT taxpayer and Renewable Energy Developer, filed administrative claims for a refund of its unutilized input VAT for the first, second, third, and fourth quarters of taxable year 2011. When the Commissioner of Internal Revenue failed to act on these claims, MGI filed petitions for review before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). The CTA First Division denied the petitions, a decision affirmed by the CTA En Banc. The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether MGI was entitled to a refund of its unutilized input VAT for the specified periods, hinging on whether MGI met the legal requirements for such claims.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by outlining the nature of VAT within the Philippine tax system, emphasizing its role as an indirect tax. Indirect taxes, the Court noted, are those where the tax liability initially falls on one party but is intended to be shifted to another. Quoting Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, the Court reiterated that indirect taxes are imposed upon goods before reaching the consumer, who ultimately bears the burden. This foundational principle sets the stage for understanding the mechanisms of input and output VAT.

Under Section 105 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), any person who, in the course of trade or business, sells, barters, exchanges, leases goods or properties, renders services, and any person who imports goods shall be subject to value-added tax (VAT). The VAT is an indirect tax and the amount of tax may be shifted or passed on to the buyer, transferee or lessee of the goods, properties or services. Since VAT is an indirect tax, the seller of goods and services which also serves as an intermediary in a chain of manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, and consumers (i) shoulders the economic burden of VAT imposed on its purchases, and (ii) pays the VAT imposed on its sales. The first is called input tax and the second, output tax.

The mechanics of VAT involve input and output taxes. Input tax refers to the VAT paid by a VAT-registered person on purchases of goods or services, while output tax is the VAT due on the sale or lease of taxable goods or services. In a typical production chain, manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors pass on the VAT to final consumers. To illustrate, a manufacturer’s output VAT becomes the input VAT for a wholesale distributor, which in turn passes on its own output VAT to a retail distributor. This process continues until the final consumer bears the ultimate VAT burden. At each stage, the excess of output taxes over input taxes is paid by the relevant party and passed on to their immediate buyer. Section 110(B) of the NIRC provides:

(B) Excess Output or Input Tax. — If at the end of any taxable quarter the output tax exceeds the input tax, the excess shall be paid by the VAT-registered person. If the input tax exceeds the output tax, the excess shall be carried over to the succeeding quarter or quarters: Provided, however, That any input tax attributable to zero-rated sales by a VAT-registered person may at his option be refunded or credited against other internal revenue taxes, subject to the provisions of Section 112.

The court then addressed the concept of zero-rated transactions, particularly export sales. In the Philippines, the VAT system generally adheres to the destination principle, where goods and services are taxed only in the country of consumption. Exports are zero-rated, meaning they do not generate an output tax, while imports are taxed. A seller-intermediary engaged in export sales incurs input taxes but cannot offset them with output taxes. This is why Section 112(A) of the NIRC allows such businesses to claim a refund or tax credit on input taxes attributable to zero-rated transactions. Section 106 of the NIRC provides, in part:

(2) The following sales by VAT-registered persons shall be subject to zero percent (0%) rate:

(a) Export Sales. — The term “export sales” means:

(1) The sale and actual shipment of goods from the Philippines to a foreign country, irrespective of any shipping arrangement that may be agreed upon which may influence or determine the transfer of ownership of the goods so exported and paid for in acceptable foreign currency or its equivalent in goods or services, and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);

To successfully claim a refund or tax credit under Section 112(A), the Supreme Court, citing San Roque Power Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, outlined nine specific criteria that a taxpayer must meet. These include being VAT-registered, engaging in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales, ensuring the input taxes are duly paid and not transitional, and demonstrating that the input taxes have not been applied against output taxes. Critically, the claimant must prove that the input taxes are attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to these requirements, underscoring that the refund or tax credit is contingent upon the existence of zero-rated sales to which the input VAT can be tied.

MGI argued that the two-year prescriptive period for filing a refund claim should be reckoned from the close of the taxable quarter when the relevant sales—specifically, the sales of its suppliers—were made, relying on the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mirant Pagbilao Corporation. MGI also contended that there was no requirement that the zero-rated sales and the input taxes sought to be refunded must occur during the same period. The Court disagreed with MGI’s interpretation. It cited Luzon Hydro Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, which held that a claim for refund must be supported by evidence showing zero-rated sales for the relevant period. The absence of such evidence, as in MGI’s case, is fatal to the claim. The Court also clarified the ruling in Mirant, stating that the two-year prescriptive period begins from the close of the taxable quarter when the relevant sales (i.e., the zero-rated sales) were made, not when the input VAT was incurred.

In this case, MGI admitted that it had no sales during taxable year 2011 and only began selling in 2014. Because MGI had no zero-rated sales during the periods in question, there was no output VAT against which the input VAT could be deducted. The Supreme Court found that MGI failed to establish its claim for a refund or tax credit, as the existence of zero-rated sales is a prerequisite under Section 112(A). The court rejected MGI’s interpretation of Mirant, clarifying that the phrase “relevant sales” refers to the zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales of the taxpayer-claimant, not the purchases made by the taxpayer or the sales made by its suppliers.

The Court emphasized that the tax credit system allows VAT-registered entities to offset VAT on sales with VAT paid on purchases. However, for exporters subject to zero-rated VAT, the tax refund mechanism provides an incentive by allowing them to claim a refund or tax credit for unutilized input VAT. This incentive is specifically tied to zero-rated sales. To accept MGI’s argument would lead to an illogical situation where input VAT is attributed to purchases made by the taxpayer or sales made by its suppliers, rather than the sales made by the taxpayer-claimant itself. Such an interpretation would undermine the purpose of Section 112(A).

The Supreme Court reiterated that taxpayers bear the burden of proving the legal and factual bases of their claims for tax credits or refunds. Tax refunds, being akin to exemptions from taxation, are construed strictly against the claimant. The Court held that MGI failed to meet this burden, and therefore, its claim for a refund or tax credit was denied.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Maibarara Geothermal, Inc. (MGI) was entitled to a refund of its unutilized input VAT for taxable year 2011, given that it had no sales during that period. The court examined whether MGI met the requirements under Section 112(A) of the NIRC.
What is Value-Added Tax (VAT)?	VAT is an indirect tax imposed on the sale of goods, properties, or services in the Philippines. It is an indirect tax, meaning the seller initially pays the tax but can shift the burden to the buyer.
What are zero-rated sales?	Zero-rated sales are export sales of goods and services where the tax rate is set at zero percent. Sellers of zero-rated transactions do not charge output tax but can claim a refund or tax credit for previously charged input VAT.
What is input tax and output tax?	Input tax is the VAT paid by a VAT-registered person on purchases of goods or services used in their business. Output tax is the VAT due on the sale or lease of taxable goods or services by a VAT-registered person.
What does Section 112(A) of the NIRC cover?	Section 112(A) of the NIRC allows VAT-registered persons with zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales to apply for a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax attributable to such sales.
When does the prescriptive period for filing a VAT refund claim begin?	The two-year prescriptive period for filing an administrative claim for a VAT refund begins to run from the close of the taxable quarter when the relevant sales (zero-rated or effectively zero-rated) were made, not when the input VAT was incurred.
What was the main reason MGI’s claim was denied?	MGI’s claim was denied because it had no zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales during the taxable year 2011. The Supreme Court ruled that the existence of such sales is a prerequisite for claiming a refund or tax credit of unutilized input VAT.
What is the destination principle in VAT?	The destination principle means that goods and services are taxed only in the country where they are consumed. Exports are zero-rated, while imports are taxed to adhere to this principle.
What evidence is needed to support a claim for VAT refund based on zero-rated sales?	To support a VAT refund claim, a taxpayer must provide evidence showing zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales to which the input VAT being refunded is attributable, along with VAT official receipts and VAT returns.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Maibarara Geothermal, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue reinforces the stringent requirements for claiming VAT refunds, particularly the necessity of establishing zero-rated sales. This ruling serves as a reminder to taxpayers that VAT refunds are tied to specific economic activities, particularly exports, and compliance with the legal requirements is paramount.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Maibarara Geothermal, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 250479, July 18, 2022

July 18, 2022

Taxing Geothermal Energy: When Government Leases Meet Private Use

The Supreme Court ruled that PNOC-EDC, despite being a government-owned corporation, is liable for real property taxes on the Mt. Apo Geothermal Reservation Area (MAGRA) because it is the beneficial user of the property. This means that even if the government owns the land, if a private entity or a government corporation with no tax-exempt charter benefits from its use, it becomes subject to real property taxes. The decision clarifies the scope of tax exemptions for government properties when their use is transferred to taxable entities.

Power, Property, and Taxes: Who Pays When Public Land Generates Private Profit?

This case revolves around the taxability of the Mt. Apo Geothermal Reservation Area (MAGRA), a government-owned property utilized by the Philippine National Oil Company-Energy Development Corporation (PNOC-EDC). PNOC-EDC, a government-owned corporation without specific tax exemptions in its charter, entered into a service contract with the Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct geothermal operations within MAGRA. This included building and operating a 104-megawatt power plant that generates electricity using steam extracted from the area. The City of Kidapawan assessed real property taxes on MAGRA, leading PNOC-EDC to contest the assessment, arguing that as a government entity utilizing government land, it should be exempt.

The central legal question is whether PNOC-EDC’s use of MAGRA qualifies as a “beneficial use” that triggers tax liability under Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code (LGC). This provision states that real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines is exempt from real property tax, except when the beneficial use is granted to a taxable person. If PNOC-EDC is deemed the beneficial user, the property becomes taxable, impacting its operational costs and potentially affecting energy prices.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, underscored the importance of interpreting tax exemptions strictly against the claimant and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. The Court then addressed whether the Local Government Code (LGC) withdrew the exemption under the service contract and if PNOC-EDC is liable to pay the real property taxes, whether the machineries, equipment, buildings and other infrastructures found in MAGRA may be levied. The Court examined the nature of PNOC-EDC’s use of MAGRA based on the service contract between the government and PNOC-EDC. Section 234(a) of the LGC is key to the Court’s analysis:

SECTION 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. – The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax:

(a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person;

The Court found that PNOC-EDC was indeed the beneficial user. It highlighted several factors demonstrating PNOC-EDC’s control and benefit from the property. PNOC-EDC exclusively conducts geothermal operations within MAGRA. It retains a profit in the amount of 40% of the net value of the amount realized from the sale of geothermal resources. It is even allowed to charge its operating expenses from the gross value of the sales. These operational and financial benefits indicated that PNOC-EDC’s role went beyond mere administration, making it the primary beneficiary of MAGRA’s resources.

Further cementing its conclusion, the Court emphasized the concept of “actual use,” which refers to the purpose for which the property is principally utilized by the person in possession. The Court also examined specific provisions in the service contract, noting that PNOC-EDC was required to surrender portions of MAGRA back to the government after certain periods, further demonstrating its control over the property during the contract’s term. This power to utilize and potentially relinquish portions of the land underscored PNOC-EDC’s position as the entity in actual control and use of MAGRA.

Building on this principle, the Court addressed PNOC-EDC’s argument that the LGC did not withdraw the tax exemption provided under the service contract. The Court emphasized that the power to grant tax exemptions lies with Congress and, to a certain extent, with local legislative bodies. Moreover, the Local Government Code specifically enumerates the entities exempt from real property taxation and PNOC-EDC is not one of them. The Court referenced Section 28(4), Article VI of the Constitution, highlighting that any law granting tax exemptions must be passed with the concurrence of a majority of all Members of Congress.

The Court then addressed the issue of whether PNOC-EDC’s machineries, equipment, buildings, and other infrastructures within MAGRA could be levied upon to satisfy the tax delinquency. It clarified that the warrant of levy specifically targeted MAGRA itself, not the improvements on it. The Court explained that while the land itself, being inalienable government property, could not be sold at public auction, the improvements were also exempt from levy because the warrant only covered the land.

However, the Court emphasized that the City of Kidapawan was not without recourse. It could pursue a civil action to collect the real property tax. This remedy acknowledges the city’s right to collect taxes while respecting the limitations on levying government-owned land. The Court further elaborated on the concept of personal liability for real property taxes.

Finally, the Court addressed PNOC-EDC’s claim that the real property tax assessment was not yet final and executory. The Court cited Systems Plus Computer College of Caloocan City v. Local Government of Caloocan City, emphasizing the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. It stressed that PNOC-EDC should have appealed the assessment to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals before seeking judicial intervention. By failing to exhaust these administrative remedies, PNOC-EDC’s challenge to the assessment was deemed premature.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether PNOC-EDC, a government-owned corporation, was the beneficial user of the Mt. Apo Geothermal Reservation Area (MAGRA) and therefore liable for real property taxes.
What is “beneficial use” in the context of real property tax?	“Beneficial use” refers to the actual use and enjoyment of a property, even if the user is not the legal owner. If a taxable entity has beneficial use of government-owned property, the property becomes subject to real property tax.
Why did the Supreme Court rule against PNOC-EDC?	The Court ruled against PNOC-EDC because it found that the corporation had exclusive control over the geothermal operations, retained a significant portion of the profits, and was responsible for operating expenses. These factors demonstrated that PNOC-EDC was the primary beneficiary of MAGRA.
What does the Local Government Code say about tax exemptions?	The Local Government Code (LGC) generally withdraws previous tax exemptions unless specifically provided for in the code. The LGC also states that properties owned by the government are exempt except when the beneficial use is granted to a taxable person.
Can the City of Kidapawan sell MAGRA to recover the unpaid taxes?	No, the City of Kidapawan cannot sell MAGRA because it is inalienable government property. However, the city can pursue a civil action to collect the unpaid real property taxes from PNOC-EDC.
What administrative steps should PNOC-EDC have taken?	PNOC-EDC should have appealed the real property tax assessment to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals within 60 days of receiving the notice of assessment before seeking judicial relief.
What is the implication of this ruling for other government-owned corporations?	This ruling clarifies that government-owned corporations without specific tax-exempt charters are liable for real property taxes on government-owned land they use for commercial purposes. This encourages these corporations to evaluate potential tax consequences in operations.
Can the machineries and equipment of PNOC-EDC in MAGRA be levied?	The court ruled that the machineries and equipment of PNOC-EDC cannot be levied because the warrant of levy only covered the delinquent land and not the said improvements.
What happens to existing tax exemptions not found in the LGC?	According to the Supreme Court, any exemption from payment of real property tax previously granted to, or presently enjoyed by, all persons, whether natural or juridical, including all government-owned or controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of the Code.

In conclusion, this case serves as a crucial reminder that tax exemptions are narrowly construed and that government-owned corporations are not automatically exempt from real property taxes. The focus is on who truly benefits from the use of the property. This decision reinforces the importance of exhausting administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention in tax disputes.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CITY OF KIDAPAWAN, G.R. No. 166651, December 09, 2005

January 31, 2006

When Eminent Domain Leads to Total Loss: Just Compensation for Uninhabitable Property

The Supreme Court ruled that when the National Power Corporation (NPC) rendered private property uninhabitable through its operations, it effectively took the entire property, entitling the owner to just compensation for the total loss. This decision underscores that government entities cannot evade their responsibility to compensate landowners when their actions, even without formal expropriation, result in the complete loss of property value and usability. This case reinforces the constitutional right to just compensation, ensuring that property owners are not left to bear the burden of public projects that destroy their private assets.

Beyond Expropriation: When Geothermal Operations Render Property Worthless

This case revolves around a property owned by Antonino Pobre in Tiwi, Albay, which he had developed into the “Tiwi Hot Springs Resort Subdivision.” The National Power Corporation (NPC), in its pursuit of geothermal energy, initiated two expropriation cases to acquire portions of Pobre’s land. However, the damage caused by NPC’s operations extended far beyond the expropriated areas, rendering the entire property uninhabitable due to noise, pollution, and altered topography. The central legal question is whether NPC should compensate Pobre not only for the land initially targeted for expropriation but also for the total loss of value and usability of his entire property.

The facts reveal a series of actions by NPC that significantly impacted Pobre’s property. Initially, NPC leased eleven lots from Pobre in 1972. Then, in 1977 and 1979, NPC filed two separate expropriation cases to acquire portions of the property for its geothermal operations. During these operations, NPC dumped waste materials beyond the agreed site, altering the property’s topography. Pobre filed a motion to dismiss the second complaint, claiming damages. NPC then sought to dismiss the case, citing an alternative site and abandonment of the project due to Pobre’s opposition. The trial court granted NPC’s motion but allowed Pobre to present evidence for damages. Ultimately, the trial court ruled in favor of Pobre, ordering NPC to pay the fair market value of the entire subdivision, plus legal interest and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision but deleted the award of attorney’s fees.

NPC argued that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion and without jurisdiction and that NPC had not “taken” the entire property. NPC also contended that even if there was a “taking,” the 8,311.60 square-meter portion previously expropriated should be excluded. Furthermore, NPC questioned the amount of just compensation and insisted that the price should be fixed at P25.00 per square meter based on a previous agreement. The procedural issues raised by NPC, particularly concerning the dismissal of its complaint and the preservation of Pobre’s claim for damages, were also central to the dispute.

The Supreme Court addressed the procedural issues first, dismissing NPC’s claim that it had the right to automatically dismiss the complaint under Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1964 Rules of Court. The Court clarified that Rule 67, specifically governing eminent domain cases, applied. The Court emphasized that Pobre had already filed and served his “motion to dismiss/answer” before NPC filed its motion to dismiss. Thus, NPC’s right to dismiss the complaint was not absolute, especially since the landowner had already suffered damages.

The Court also highlighted the limitations on the power of eminent domain, stating,

“A landowner cannot be deprived of his right over his land until expropriation proceedings are instituted in court. The court must then see to it that the taking is for public use, there is payment of just compensation and there is due process of law.”

The dismissal of an expropriation case cannot be arbitrary, especially when the landowner has suffered damages due to the expropriation proceedings. In such cases, the landowner has the right to have damages assessed, either in the same case or in a separate action.

Regarding the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts, the Supreme Court upheld these findings, noting that factual questions are beyond the scope of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that the trial and appellate courts had found that NPC’s operations had rendered Pobre’s property uninhabitable as a resort-subdivision. Consequently, the Court addressed whether NPC must pay just compensation for the entire property, not just the portions initially subject to expropriation.

The Court cited the principle that the dismissal of an expropriation case ordinarily restores possession of the land to the landowner. However, when restoration is not feasible or practical, the landowner is entitled to demand payment of just compensation.

“In this case, we agree with the trial and appellate courts that it is no longer possible and practical to restore possession of the Property to Pobre. The Property is no longer habitable as a resort-subdivision. The Property is worthless to Pobre and is now useful only to NPC. Pobre has completely lost the Property as if NPC had physically taken over the entire 68,969 square-meter Property.”

The Supreme Court referenced United States v. Causby, which established that a taking is complete and compensable when private property is rendered uninhabitable by an entity with eminent domain power. Similarly, the Court cited National Housing Authority v. Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo, where the NHA was compelled to pay just compensation even after abandoning the expropriation case.

The Court noted that NPC had effectively appropriated Pobre’s property without proper expropriation proceedings. By dismissing its own complaint for the second expropriation and failing to institute proceedings for the remaining lots, NPC left the trial court to determine just compensation and damages. This case was reduced to a simple case of recovery of damages, and therefore, the usual procedures for determining just compensation were no longer applicable. The Court emphasized that NPC’s actions constituted a transgression of procedural due process.

The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts’ valuation of P50 per square meter as reasonable, considering the property was an established resort-subdivision. The Court also affirmed the award of legal interest at 6% per annum from September 6, 1979, the date the writ of possession was issued to NPC, until full payment. The Court also found it proper to award temperate damages of P50,000 and exemplary damages of P100,000, considering the loss of potential and the need to deter abuse of eminent domain authority.

FAQs

What was the central issue in this case?	The key issue was whether NPC should compensate Pobre for the total loss of his property’s value and usability, even beyond the areas initially targeted for expropriation, due to the damage caused by NPC’s geothermal operations.
What is eminent domain?	Eminent domain is the right of the state to take private property for public use upon payment of just compensation and adherence to due process. This power is often delegated to public entities like NPC.
What constitutes just compensation in expropriation cases?	Just compensation is the fair and full equivalent of the loss sustained by the property owner, which includes not only the market value of the property but also consequential damages.
What happens when an expropriation case is dismissed?	Ordinarily, the dismissal of an expropriation case restores possession of the property to the landowner. However, if restoration is no longer feasible or practical, the landowner is entitled to demand payment of just compensation for the taking.
Why was NPC required to pay for the entire property, not just the expropriated portions?	NPC was required to pay for the entire property because its operations rendered the entire property uninhabitable and worthless to Pobre, effectively taking the whole property without proper expropriation.
What are temperate and exemplary damages?	Temperate damages are awarded when some pecuniary loss is proven, but the amount cannot be determined with certainty. Exemplary damages are imposed as a corrective measure for the public good.
When does legal interest accrue in expropriation cases?	Legal interest accrues from the time of the taking of the property until the time of full payment by the government, compensating the landowner for the delay in receiving just compensation.
Can a landowner claim damages if an expropriation case is dismissed?	Yes, the landowner can claim damages for all damages occasioned by the institution of the expropriation case, either in the same action or in a separate action.

This case serves as a significant reminder to entities wielding the power of eminent domain. They must exercise this power with utmost care and diligence, ensuring that they fully compensate property owners for any damages incurred due to their actions. The NPC’s actions demonstrated a disregard for Pobre’s property rights, leading the Court to uphold the award of just compensation, temperate damages, and exemplary damages.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: National Power Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and Antonino Pobre, G.R. No. 106804, August 12, 2004

August 12, 2004