 |
| photo borrowed from http://kensanph.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/an-open-letter-to-bir-comm-kim-henares/comment-page-1/ |
I.
AT THE START of
President Benigno Aquino III’s term, it was made clear through not a few media
reports that the Aquino administration, supposedly social liberal and therefore
likely intent on a flurry of social spending, would be serious about its tax
collection and, through several charges soon filed in the courts (including a later
famous lien against a world-renowned boxer-congressman), would be just as
serious about its campaign against tax evasion, willful and not.
Newly-appointed to the Bureau of Internal Revenue helm, Commissioner
Kim Henares was portrayed in the media as that no-nonsense lady collector with
both a hardened legal view and a Mona Lisa smile, concerned about equality in
implementing the (equitable) tax laws of the land. Her image got so familiar
that workers looking at their pay slips every fifteenth and thirtieth of the
month would refer to her as “Sakim (Tagalog for greedy) Henares”, while
professionals (most recently doctors) who were asked through a TV and newspaper
campaign to file the right amount of taxes due society called her “Kim
Henarrassment”. Meanwhile, those who understood the government’s wisdom about
equality applauded her, according her almost-personal campaign the same height of appreciation they once gave
the President’s “no to the elite’s wang-wangs on our roads” campaign. Social
liberal, too, the BIR’s stance under the Aquino government has seemed, which Aquino stance also showed in the government’s
earlier and ongoing series of investigations on fund embezzlement and/or
inappropriate appropriations involving past or opposition government
personalities.
Social liberal and for equality? Perhaps.
Well, not
so fast, says a BIR examiner who recently filed a case with the Ombudsman against
Henares and her deputy. In fact, the examiner says Henares’ and the
government’s media image promoting equality in taxation has proved to be bogus from the
git-go. He should know, he says, he’s looked the bogus tiger in the eye. The current government has
been as selective in its hardened BIR stance, he says, in the same way it has
been perceived as selective when it displayed a soft bearing towards the multi-million
peso bonuses for SSS executives that irked SSS members dissatisfied with SSS service or when it defended the valid role of
congress people in the allocation of executive DAP funds (as if, for a long hour there, it forgot
social liberalism’s disdain for pork barrel politics).
On May 5 of this year, Representative
Magtanggol Gunigundo I (Lakas Kampi CMD-Valenzuela City) made a privilege
speech treating of the examiner’s data. According to the examiner, the
congressman’s speech “emphasized fair and
reasonable enforcement and implementation of revenue laws” and stated that “taxation
is in good exercise when it is equitable; i.e., if burden falls on those better
able to pay and not on the poor.” The congressional record on this speech further shows that the congressman censured the present leadership of Commissioner Kim Henares for promulgating stiff tax rules on marginalized income earners
(farmers, small retail store owners, and tricycle operators)—rules which he
says fail to take note of MIEs’ tax exemption by the Barangay Micro-Business
Enterprises Law—while appearing to have allowed
a large taxpayer, Golden Donuts (licensee and sub-franchiser of Dunkin’
Donuts), to get away with non-payment of P1.56 billion in tax arrears for the year
2007 alone.
In news reports (read this one here, for instance), Henares said she actually ordered a re-investigation that proved the examiner’s
findings to be bloated. The examiner, Othello Dalanon (whose friend E- asked
me to allow an interview with the man and accommodate a longer treatment of the case on the
blogosphere), maintains that the re-assessment that Henares ordered actually still
came up with a fat unpaid amount, the very same P1.56 billion he
mentions as the amount that the social liberal government of President Aquino (and
its social spending needs), and the people, have been grossly robbed of.
Dalanon’s beef with Henares’ inaction towards the doughnut company,
which was actually the beef the Lakas Kampi CMD representative from Valenzuela was citing
in his privilege speech, is actually a tax case that goes back to 2007,
concerning Golden Donuts, Inc. (GDI), the exclusive Philippine franchisee of
the global brand “Dunkin’ Donuts”, which was “slapped with a tax
assessment amounting to P1.56 billion, including increments, that arose from
irregularities discovered and documented by me,” said the examiner. Dalanon only ran into this because he was assigned to the case in his official capacity as a former BIR examiner. It
was only when an alleged inaction on the case by the current leadership became too obvious, way after the same (but more understandable?) inaction by the Arroyo-era leadership in the bureau, that Dalanon saw the need to promptly
resign, purportedly to protect his person’s position from whatever action the
bureau may now want to inflict on it. It must also be noted that Dalanon, as
per his claim, first wrote to the Office of the President and then saw ruling-party
members before he decided to show opposition figures like Rep. Gunigundo his data. It was only Gunigundo who showed interest in his case, while Senator Sonny Angara seemed more
interested in Dalanon's views about a lowered VAT rate (Dalanon is also a campaigner for a lowered VAT).
In his report to the government personalities he approached, Dalanon
decried the commissioner’s “intentional failure”
to either 1) enforce collection of the said assessment “despite the ensuing finality
of the same,” or 2) sue the doughnut company for tax evasion (for
under-declaring revenues in its tax return). Dalanon then filed a case against
Henares and her deputy with the Office of the Ombudsman.
Here is Dalanon’s story:
According to him, his assessment has
remained undisturbed after rigid scrutiny by high-ranking tax experts in the
district involved (RDO 41, Mandaluyong) and from various regional levels of the
bureau. The assessment has been covered by a Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) and
by Final
Assessment Notices (FANs), all bearing Demand
No. 41-B072-07 and all dated October 29, 2010,
issued and approved by the Regional Director of Revenue Region No. 7, Quezon
City. According to Dalanon, his assessment findings are merely the resultant of the following manifestations of irregularities:
1.
GDI has two (2) sets of books of accounts.
One is the duly-registered hardbound computer-generated books of accounts which
were the bases of his assessment. The other is the unregistered “manually-posted
from original books of accounts” records which GDI claimed to be the bases of its
Trial Balance for Financial Statements and Income Tax Return Purposes.
Dalanon
notes that keeping
two (2) or more sets of books of accounts is already
a fraudulent act or criminal tax violation.
2.
GDI reflected false
information in the company’s tax return. The CD and duly-registered books of
accounts (hardbound computer-generated), as duly validated by Dalanon, showed
a net taxable income amounting
to P135.2 million while the Annual Income Tax Return (AITR) reflected a net loss of P44.9 million.
Again,
Dalanon notes that reflecting false
information on one’s tax return is already a fraudulent act or criminal
tax violation.
3.
GDI’s CD and duly-registered
books showed higher sales than those reflected in the company’s tax return.
Sales per CD and duly-registered
books was P1.928 billion while the amount reflected in the AITR was P1.031 billion, or
a substantial under-declaration amounting to P897 million.
Dalanon
points to the Supreme Court ruling
in the case of Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines vs. Court of
Appeals, et al., 250 SCRA 434, which states that “where
the books of accounts reflected a sales or receipts higher than that reflected
in the return, the books of accounts should
prevail. This is so, because
the books of accounts are kept by the taxpayer and are prepared under its
control and supervision; and they reflected what may be
deemed to be admissions against interest.” The representations
made by GDI in the duly-registered hardbound computer-generated books of
accounts as presented by it to the BIR for audit and examination, says
Dalanon, "amounted to admissions
against interest which it cannot disown and change at its convenience or
pleasure."
Again,
Dalanon emphasizes that substantial under-declaration of sales or revenues in a company’s tax return is already a
fraudulent act or criminal tax violation.
4.
Other independent relevant
documents, such as, but not limited to, Franchise Agreement, Technical Service
Agreement, Final Withholding Tax Remittance Returns, and VAT returns, submitted
by GDI to the Bureau for audit, further revealed that GDI’s sales topped P2.366
billion while the
amount recorded in its duly-registered books was just P1.928 billion; or a substantial unrecorded and undeclared sales
amounting to P438 million.
Again,
Dalanon emphasizes that the non-recording
of sales in the duly-registered books and consequent non-declaration of the same in the AITR already constitute fraudulent
acts or criminal tax violations.
It was these irregularities, and other discrepancies enumerated in his
memorandum and audit reports, that culminated in the company’s aforesaid tax deficit,
says Dalanon.
Dalanon claims that he personally reported the case to
Commissioner Henares and recommended to her the criminal prosecution for tax
evasion of the company under the much-vaunted RATE
(Run After Tax Evaders) program of the bureau and the Aquino government. But “despite sufficient mathematical computations duly supported by pieces of
physical evidence to demonstrate the omissions,” he says Henares “intentionally did not
pursue a tax evasion case against the company,” because the said company’s
stockholder-secretary, Ms.
Marixi Prieto, who also happens to
be the president of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
(PDI), supposedly “talked to Henares and BIR Regional Director
Nestor Valeroso on different occasions, both of whom then extended leniency to the taxpayer in view of Ms.
Prieto’s closeness to President
Benigno Aquino III,” this ostensibly according
to Deputy Commissioner Estela Sales. [Prieto is also the mother of the wife of Benguet Corporation president and CEO Philip Romualdez, who is son to the former Ambassador to the US, China and Saudi Arabia and brother of Imelda Marcos, Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez; Philip is also brother to Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez].
In a broadcast interview with Henares by GMA 7′s news reporter Susan
Enriquez on February 28, 2014, Henares publicly
declared Dalanon’s assessment as faulty and told Enriquez that she had ordered
two re-investigations that found this to be true (she claimed that the
re-investigations arrived at identical results, and both had the same conclusion:
Dalanon’s assessment was inaccurate). Dalanon, however, says he was not given
the chance to rebut the commissioner’s testimony.
Fortunately for him, the March 4, 2014 Manila Times column of Emeterio Sd. Perez titled “Why is Henares not pursuing a tax evasion case vs. donut seller?” did “take up the cudgel for Othello Dalanon.” The column opines that Henares
was “entirely wrong” in publicly declaring Dalanon’s
assessment incorrect, “instead of waiting for GDI to question Dalanon’s
findings before the Court of Tax Appeals.”
“'Pinaimbestigahan natin ng ilang beses, at sa mga imbestigasyon na yan,
lumalabas na hindi naman tama yung assessment ni Mr. Othello [Dalanon]', Henares
said.” – this was from the report written by Elizabeth Marcelo/JDS, GMA News
Well, Dalanon himself has questions to ask:
Why was his assessment not given a chance by the commissioner to stand
in a judicial scrutiny before it was publicly announced as flawed?
If his assessment was wrong, what was the correct assessment for
Henares? Why did she not clearly disclose the same in public? Where are the
reports of those re-investigations that showed identical results? And how much
was collected for the government’s coffer? Less than P4 million?—he further
asks.
Is the commissioner’s act not an expression of “tendering” for GDI,
a potential tax evader company?
Dalanon wanted to know the answers then, he still would like to know the answers now.
And while the BIR promulgates its tax rules on marginalized income
earners (MIEs) and has been quite active in “hastily” prosecuting other alleged tax
cheats (the case against Zoren Legaspi, for instance), she seems to fear or
appears to be coddling Dunkin’ Donuts’ local seller, Dalanon says.
II.
Dalanon’s assessment against Golden Donuts, Inc. obtained finality.
Commissioner Henares’s statement claiming that the authority to
decide and declare finality of a certain assessment is a function vested by law
upon the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is wrong, Dalanon says. Though not a
lawyer, he says he knows that only the law can determine the finality of an
assessment.
He cites Section 228 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (1997
NIRC), as amended, in relation to Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 12-99 as amended
by RR No. 18-2013 and as clarified under Revenue Memorandum Circular No.
11-2014, which provides that assessment becomes final, executory and demandable
in the following instances:
1.
If taxpayer failed to file a valid protest against the Formal Letter of Demand
(FLD) and Final Assessment Notice (FAN) within thirty (30) days from date of
receipt of the FLD/FAN.
The taxpayer may
file a protest against the FLD/FAN through a request for reconsideration or re-investigation.
He must state the facts, the applicable laws, rules and regulations or jurisprudence on which his protest is based;
otherwise, the protest shall be considered void and without force and
effect.
If taxpayer failed to file a valid protest,
assessment shall become final,
executory and demandable.
On
November 30, 2010, GDI filed its letter of protest vs. the FLD/FAN. However, Dalanon
says it did not state the facts, the applicable laws, rules and regulations or jurisprudence on which its protest was based. The protest merely stated “adopt in
toto the arguments, explanation and supporting documents as
set forth in our letter protest to the PAN (Preliminary Assessment Notice)
dated October 14, 2010.″ It also failed to specifically state whether the protest was a plea for
reconsideration or re-investigation. It merely requested the cancellation
and withdrawal of the assessment on the grounds that the same had no factual
and legal bases.
Dalanon says that the Court of Tax Appeals, in the case of Security Bank Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(CTA Case No. 6564, November 28, 2006), emphasized that “a protest to the preliminary assessment
notice is not the same as the protest required to be filed as an answer to the
final assessment notice. In fact, a preliminary assessment notice may or may
not even be protested to by the taxpayer, and the fact of non-protest shall not
in any way make the preliminary assessment notice final and un-appealable. What
is clear from Section 319-A of the Tax Code of 1977, as amended, is that
failure on the part of the taxpayer to protest or reply to a preliminary
assessment notice paves the way for the issuance of a final assessment notice.
However, evident under the said Section is that failure on the part of the taxpayer to file a
valid administrative protest through a request for reconsideration or
reinvestigation on the final assessment notice, shall result in the finality of the said
FAN.” Underscoring supplied by Dalanon.
Again,
what the law demands is a valid
protest against the final assessment notice; otherwise, the assessment
becomes final,
executory and demandable.
2.
If the taxpayer failed to
submit all relevant documents in support of his protest within
sixty (60) days from date of filing of his letter of protest.
As
mentioned above, it was on November 30, 2010 when GDI filed its letter of
protest against the FLD/FAN. The 60-day period within which it could submit all
relevant documents in support of its protest ended on January 29, 2011. It
submitted the documents only on March 24, 2011. When it submitted the required
documents in support of its protest, 114 days after the date of the filing of its protest had elapsed, not to
mention the fact that said documents contained the same information as that
already contained in its letter dated November 27, 2009 which were already
taken up in the Adjusted Final Audit Findings sent to GDI covered by the Post-Reporting Notice dated July 19, 2010 which became the bases of the PAN and
FLD/FANs.
Furthermore, Dalanon says that notwithstanding the ensuing finality of his assessment, Commissioner
Henares “intentionally failed” to enforce collection, and instead
ordered two re-investigations.
“…nang aming tanungin si Henares x x x nagreklamo daw kasi ang kinatawan
ng GDI na mali ang assessment sa kanila ni Dalanon kaya pinareview niya ito ng
dalawang beses. Ang resulta, mali nga raw ang ginawang assessment ni Dalanon” –
that’s Susan Enriquez reporting for GMA News.
Again, as per report of Elizabeth Marcelo/JDS, GMA News: “Pinaimbestigahan
natin ng ilang beses, at sa mga imbestigasyon na yan, lumalabas na hindi naman
tama yung assessment ni Mr. Othello [Dalanon], Henares said.”
“Is there a law that authorizes the commissioner to order two
re-investigations of a due and demandable assessment?”—Dalanon asks.
Clearly, he says, “while the law grants the taxpayer the opportunity to
protest the FLD/FAN, such must be a valid
protest, otherwise the assessment becomes final, executory and demandable, and the right of the
government to collect the deficiency tax becomes absolute and, thus, precludes the taxpayer from questioning the
correctness of the assessment and from raising any justification or defense
that would pave the way for a re-investigation.”
III.
Again, here are the arguments:
To Dalanon this is Issue One—GDI’s CD and
duly-registered books of accounts (hardbound computer-generated) showed sales
amounting to P1.928 billion, while its AITR showed only P1.031 billion, or a
substantial under-declaration amounting to P897 million.
GDI’s contentions go thus—the CD
and duly-registered books of accounts (hardbound computer-generated) contained
more than 2,500 errors posted in 84 accounts and, thus, should not be the bases
for Dalanon’s assessment. Furthermore, we have “manually-posted from original
books of accounts” records which were the bases of our Trial Balance for
Financial Statements and Income Tax Return Purposes.
Dalanon’s points include the following:
1.
“GDI’s CD and duly-registered
books of accounts (hardbound computer-generated) already contained GDI’s external
auditors’ adjustments. It means that said financial records were already
audited by GDI’s external auditors.”
2.
“The differences or
discrepancies between the sales accounts reflected in the CD and
duly-registered books of accounts on one hand and the AITR on the other were
not reflected by GDI’s external auditors as adjusting or correcting entries in
the said financial records.”
3.
“With the more than 2,500
errors posted in 84 accounts contained in the said financial records as GDI
claimed, it is unfeasible and amazing that GDI—which belongs to the high-profile business in the Philippine industry, with its highly competent
accounting and auditing workforce, and with the supervisors, the tax managers,
the external auditors, and the reputable independent public auditors that GDI
hired to conduct quarterly reviews of its financial records—would not notice
such remarkable and significant errors.”
4.
“The 84 accounts reflected in
financial records that allegedly contained errors are all nominal accounts (i.e.,
income and expense accounts). GDI did not claim that the real accounts (i.e.,
balance sheet) reflected in the said financial records contained errors. Thus,
let us determine sales based on a real account that is associated with sales
account.
“VAT
Payable is a real account that is associated with sales account. Using this
account, sales can be determined as follows:
VAT Payable account total credit
per duly-registered books
|
|
Divide by VAT rate
|
12%
|
Sales per duly-registered books
with VAT components
|
1,893,860,452.75
|
Add: Sales per General Journal
without VAT components
|
34,511,326.03
|
Sales based on VAT Payable account
|
“It
may be noted that even if sales is computed based on VAT Payable account, it
would result in the amount of P1.928
billion. This proves that sales reflected per CD and duly-registered
books do not contain errors, contrary to GDI’s claim.”
5.
“According to the Supreme
Court, the books of accounts prevail over the return when they reflect
higher sales, because they are kept and prepared under control and supervision by the taxpayer and, thus, are admissions against interest.
Then here’s Issue Two—GDI’s sales topped P2.366 billion based on other
independent relevant documents; but the amount recorded in the CD and
duly-registered books was only P1.928 billion, or a substantial unrecorded and
undeclared sales amounting to P438 million.
Here are the facts supplied by
Dalanon—GDI is the exclusive Philippine franchisee of Dunkin’ Donuts of America, Inc. (DDA). As such, it grants sub-franchise rights to various domestic
entities nationwide. It has 642 outlets (shops) all over the country, 54 of which are directly-owned by
GDI, with the remaining 588 owned by the 35
sub-franchisees under GDI’s supervision. GDI maintains a
shop: central warehouse (commissary) from where all its sub-franchisees purchase on a COD
basis all products, ingredients, supplies, commodity, and merchandise for their stores.
According to Dalanon, the Franchise
Agreement between GDI and DDA states, among other things, that the former
shall remit to the latter a franchise
fee equivalent to 1% of all sales of each shop, whether directly operated by GDI or
sub-licensed to others. GDI shall be responsible for the remittance of all
fees due DDA. Well, for year 2007, the franchise fee per GDI’s CD and duly-registered books (hardbound computer-generated)
was P23.668 million. Said amount was claimed
by GDI as its own expense.
On the basis of these information, Dalanon computed the unrecorded and
undeclared sales amounting to P438 million as
follows:
Franchise fee per
CD, duly-registered books and FS
|
|
Divide by franchise
fee rate
|
1%
|
GDI’s grossed-up sales
(or should be GDI’s total sales)
|
2,366,890,800.00
|
Less: Sales per CD
and duly-registered books
|
1,928,770,398.68
|
Unrecorded and
undeclared sales
|
Now, take note, Dalanon says, that the method of validation he used in
determining GDI’s sales was already upheld by the Court of Tax Appeals in the case of Asia Coal Corporation v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 6803, February 13, 2008, when
it stated: “the commissioner may utilize
any kind of documents x x x to determine the correct sales...”
Dalanon says he presented several mathematical computations duly
supported by documentary evidence to corroborate the above computed, unrecorded,
and undeclared sales.
But here are GDI’s contentions—the Franchise Fee amounting to P23,668,908.00 is equivalent to
1% of our “system-wide
sales” which refers to sales generated by our directly-owned
outlets and those of our sub-franchisees’, excluding central warehouse’s sales.
Also, our central warehouse’s (commissary’s) sales of products to the
sub-franchisees are not covered by the 1% franchise fee.
But let us first determine the shops which GDI directly and indirectly
operates, Dalanon says.
As mentioned above, GDI has 642
outlets all over the country, 54 of which are directly-owned by the company, with the remaining 588 owned by the 35 sub-franchisees under
GDI’s supervision. Again, GDI maintains a shop: a central warehouse or commissary from where all its sub-franchisees purchase all their products.
So, GDI’s directly-owned shops would
include: (1) the central warehouse or commissary; and (2) the 54 directly-owned
outlets. Its indirectly-owned shops are the
588 outlets owned by the 35 sub-franchisees which are merely under GDI’s supervision.
Now to Dalanon’s stand:
1.
“The franchise fee amounting
to P23.668 million is equivalent to 1% of GDI’s sales alone, such as sales
generated by the central warehouse and the 54 directly-owned outlets.”
2.
“There is no specific condition
in the License Agreement between GDI and DDA that says sales of central warehouse to
the sub-franchisees are not covered by the 1% franchise fee.”
3.
“Is not GDI’s central
warehouse a shop which it also operates? Are not the purchases by the sub-franchisees
from the central warehouse also sales of GDI?”
4.
“Why did GDI claim the entire
amount of P23.668 million as its own expense? The fact that it claimed the
entire amount as its expense indicates that the same is equivalent to 1% of
GDI’s sales alone.”
5.
“Why did GDI claim the whole
amount of P2,840,123.69 representing VAT (Input Tax) on Franchise Fee as tax
credit against Output Tax? The fact that GDI claimed said amount as tax credit
against its output tax indicates that the franchise fee amounting to P23.668
million pertains to 1% of GDI’s sales alone.”
6.
“GDI is only responsible for
the remittance of the franchise fee supposed to be remitted by its
sub-franchisees to DDA. Instead of the sub-franchisees remitting directly to
DDA, the amount is coursed through GDI and would not, in all aspect, form part
of GDI’s expense.”
Again, according to Dalanon, there are several mathematical computations
duly supported by pieces of documentary evidence that would prove his findings.
“So, where did I err when my audit
findings were based on facts taken from financial records which GDI itself
submitted and presented to the bureau for audit and examination? Furthermore, I
clearly cited the applicable laws, rules and regulations or jurisprudence on
which my findings were based,” Dalanon asks.
He adds: “Why is BIR Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, whom I expected
to support my audit findings, which remained undisturbed after stiff scrutiny by
high-ranking tax experts of the bureau, lawyering for GDI? Is this the straight
path policy, the “daang matuwid,” of the Commissioner?”
To Dalanon, the 2007 deficiency tax assessment against GDI amounting to P1,564,426,808.08 is final, executory, and demandable and already legally belongs to the Filipino people.
On March 17, 2014, Othello Dalanon filed a formal complaint
before the Office of the Ombudsman against Commissioner Henares and Deputy
Commissioner Sales for grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, and violation of
Section 3(e) and (f) of Republic Act No. 3019, Section 269 paragraphs “e”
and “h” of the National Internal Revenue Code, and other special laws.
On the same date, he sent a letter of appeal to His Excellency
President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, requesting the
President’s office to enjoin their subordinates in the BIR to collect the subject of his
(Dalanon’s) deficiency tax assessment as it
already legally belongs to the Filipino people.
Dalanon, an ex-seminarian,
has also been reverently appealing to the Filipino people’s devotion to God and
country to help bring that request to the President’s attention, which might then result in his directing BIR Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares to enforce the collection
of the subject arrears. . . . [JSV]
(This blog column would welcome the
Commissioner’s [or GDI's] side of the story.)
---------------------------------------------------------------
POSTSCRIPT I: Here are
additional figures –
Details of sales per CD and
duly-registered books (hardbound computer-generated)—
Products
|
Shops/outlets
|
Central Warehouse
|
Total
|
Bakery
|
|||
Beverages
|
14,808,274.83
|
0.00
|
14,808,274.83
|
Donuts
|
399,306,130.23
|
0.00
|
399,306,130.23
|
Hot chocolates
|
12,124,500.69
|
0.00
|
12,124,500.69
|
Non-food
|
2,970,373.42
|
0.00
|
2,970,373.42
|
Others
|
23,214,373.10
|
0.00
|
23,214,373.10
|
Punch
|
1,079,941.12
|
0.00
|
1,079,941.12
|
Savory
|
20,259,716.75
|
0.00
|
20,259,716.75
|
Soft drinks
|
12,059,320.37
|
0.00
|
12,059,320.37
|
Coffee
|
31,239,473.89
|
0.00
|
31,239,473.89
|
Coffee beans
|
0.00
|
37,731,973.04
|
37,731,973.04
|
Drinks mixes
|
0.00
|
25,620,464.28
|
25,620,464.28
|
Flour mixes
|
0.00
|
1,040,179,534.53
|
1,040,179,534.53
|
Hot chocolate mix
|
0.00
|
24,467,817.55
|
24,467,817.55
|
Others
|
0.00
|
93,539,558.52
|
93,539,558.52
|
Packaging materials
|
0.00
|
179,439,948.13
|
179,439,948.13
|
Punch mixes
|
0.00
|
5,334,341.93
|
5,334,341.93
|
T-shirts
|
0.00
|
776,826.96
|
776,826.96
|
Totals
|
---------------------------------------------------------------
POSTSCRIPT II:
After reading the above blog, ePIRMA committee member Dexter Briñas Amoroso messaged me to write the following:
"Ka Jojo, Mr Dalanon's case against Kim Henares and Golden Donuts is similar to the late Atty. Mar Gen's case. Remember the issue against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo I told you before involving the owner of MegaWorld, Mr. Andrew Tan? That info actually came from Atty. Mar Gen. Ang natatandaan kong sinabi niya, ni Atty. Mar Gen, campaign financier ni Noynoy si Mr. Tan kaya hindi sinuportahan ng Noynoy administration ang kaso niya against GMA dahil sasabit daw si Mr. Tan. Hawak daw ni Atty. Mar Gen noon ang evidence (documents) na magpapatunay sa case niya against GMA and Tan, pero hindi na pinansin nung makita ang pangalan ni Tan.
"Si Atty. Mar Gen (Atty. Luis Mario General) was a former Napolcom Commissioner and Regional Director ng LTO sa Bicol.
"It was when I asked Atty. Mar Gen about campaign contributors that he messaged me about this confidential information. Below is the screen shot of that message where Atty. Mar Gen made the statement. Note that he writes 'Please do not share this info to anyone' and I promised to him not to share the info.
"But if this story is not put out there, nobody will know, and we who had access to that bit of information (albeit not the documents) would be party to the hiding. Wouldn't that put us in the same position as the Aquino government?
"I hope the family of Atty. Mar Gen would understand if they happen to read this comment of mine under your blog, if you'd care to place it as an addendum or postscript (since Blogger does not allow image upload in its comment box).
"Much thanks and keep it up, Dexter"
No comments:
Post a Comment