INSIGHTS is a monthly publication of BDB LAW to inform, update and provide perspectives to our clients and readers on significant tax-related court decisions and regulatory issuances (includes BIR, SEC, BSP and various government agencies).

DISCLAIMER: The contents of this Insights are summaries of selected issuances from various government agencies, Court decisions and articles written by our experts. They are intended for guidance only and as such should not be regarded as a substitute for professional advice.

Copyright © 2019 by Du-Baladad and Associates (BDB Law). All rights reserved. No part of this issue covered by this copyright may be produced and/or used in any form or by any means – graphic, electronic and mechanical without the written permission of the publisher.

Condominium dues are not subject to income tax, VAT and withholding tax.

The Supreme Court categorically held that condominium association dues, fees, and other charges are not subject to income tax, VAT, and withholding tax. Further, the Supreme Court held that RMC No. 65-2012 is invalid.

In reaching such conclusion, the Supreme Court made the following determinations:

1. A condominium corporation is not engaged in trade or business. A condominium corporation is not designed to engage in activities that generate income or profit. Under the Condominium Act, the corporate purpose of a condominium is limited to holding the common areas, management of the project, and such other necessary, incidental, or convenient purposes. Further, it is allowed under the same Act to collect association dues, fees, and other charges purely for the benefit of the condominium owners. It is a necessary incident to the purpose to effectively oversee, maintain, or even improve the common areas of the condominium as well as its governance.

2. Association dues, fees, and other charges do not constitute profit or gain. The expenditures incurred by the condominium corporation on behalf of the condominium owners are not intended to generate revenue nor equate to the cost of doing business. As mentioned above, the association dues, fees, and other charges are collected purely for the benefit of the condominium owners and are incidental to condominium corporation’s responsibility to oversee, maintain, or even improve the common areas of the condominium as well as its governance.

3. Association dues, fees, and other charges do not arise from transactions involving the sale, barter, or exchange of goods or property nor for the performance of services. When a condominium corporation manages, maintains, and preserves the common areas of the building, it only does so for the benefit of the condominium owners. It cannot be said to be engaged in trade or business. In collecting such fees, the condominium corporation is not selling its service to the condominium owners nor are the condominium owners buying goods and/or services from the condominium corporation when the dues are paid. Hence, there is no economic or commercial activity to speak of.

4. If there is no income tax, withholding tax cannot be collected. Only income, be it active or passive, earned by a payor-corporation can be subject to withholding tax. Further, withholding tax is intended only to facilitate the collection of income tax.

5. RMC No. 65-2012 went beyond, if not, gravely abused the CIR’s authority to interpret tax laws. The CIR is empowered to interpret tax laws, but not to expand or alter them. In the exercise of such power, the CIR cannot issue administrative rulings or circulars inconsistent with the law to be implemented. However, in issuing RMC No 65-2012, the CIR expanded or modified the law when it was declared that association dues, fees, and other charges are subject to income tax. (Bureau of Internal Revenue v. First E-Bank Tower Condominium Corp., G.R. No. 215801, January 15, 2020)

In refund of excess input VAT, the input VAT must only be attributable to zero-rated sales. Effectively zero-rated sales need not be paid in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with BSP rules and regulations.

In a claim for refund of excess input taxes, the law merely requires that the creditable input VAT should be “attributable” to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales. Nowhere does Section 112 (A) of the Tax Code state that the refundable creditable input VAT should be “directly attributable” to such sales.

Admittedly, the words “directly…attributed” were used under the same provision. However, the said words merely relate to a situation where the creditable input VAT cannot be “directly…attributed’ to any transaction. It does not, in any way, qualify the preceding sentences of the same section which will have the effect of making the refundable input VAT as only those which are “directly attributable” to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales.

When the taxpayer’s zero-rated sales are effectively zero-rated on the basis of Section 108(B)(3) of the Tax Code – sales to persons or entities whose exemption under special laws effectively subjects the supply of such sales to 0%, the zero-rated sales need not be paid in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with BSP rules and regulations. (S&WOO Construction Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 9731 dated June 1, 2020)

The issuance of an LOA is not subject to the prescriptive periods to assess and collect.

The taxpayer argues that the BIR’s LOA dated November 21, 2017 for the examination of the taxpayer’s books for all internal revenue taxes for the period from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 was issued beyond the three (3)-year prescriptive period to make a tax assessment. Hence, the same is null and void ab initio.

The CTA ruled that an LOA is not governed by the prescriptive periods to assess. What is being governed therein is the issuance of a tax assessment or the filing of an action in court without an assessment for the collection of taxes, within a certain period of time. In both provisions, nothing has been said about the issuance of an LOA. (Hemisphere-Leo Burnett, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 9749 dated June 3, 2020)

Note. At first glance, it can be argued that when an LOA is issued after the three (3) year prescriptive period to assess, it follows that any assessment made under the said LOA has already prescribed. This may not be so because if the BIR alleges fraud or filing of a false return, the prescriptive period is ten (10) not three (3) years.

A withholding agent has personality to file the claim for refund on behalf of the taxpayer.

The person entitled to claim a tax refund is the taxpayer. However, in case the taxpayer does not file a claim for refund, the withholding agent may file the claim. Furthermore, a withholding agent may file a claim for refund, even if the said withholding agent is not a wholly owned subsidiary of the principal taxpayer. Nevertheless, the withholding agent is obligated to remit to the said taxpayer the amount recovered as taxes erroneously or illegally collected. (Toledo Power Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 9465 dated June 8, 2020)

In protests in the form of requests for reconsideration, the 180-day period commences from the date of filing of the protest.

In protests in the form of requests for reconsideration, the 180-day period for the BIR to act on such protests commences from the date of filing of the protest.

In this case, the protest filed by the taxpayer clearly stated the nature thereof, i.e., it is a “request for reconsideration.” Hence, the BIR had 180 days from filing of the protest on February 25, 2015, or until August 25, 2015, to act on the protest. Correspondingly, this case should have been filed with the CTA within thirty (30) days from the BIR’s inaction on August 25, 2015, or not later than September 23, 2015. Considering that this case was filed only on January 20, 2016, the CTA is clearly without jurisdiction to entertain the same. (Getz Pharma (Phils.), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 9245 dated June 9, 2020)

Note: A taxpayer may choose to either elevate his case to the CTA within 30 days from the expiration of the 180-day period or it may opt to wait for the decision of the BIR on its protest. However, the choice of one option precludes the other.

It is the registry receipt issued by the mailing office and the affidavit of the person mailing which proves service made through registered mail.

In case the taxpayer denies receipt of the assessment notices from the BIR, the latter has the burden to prove by competent evidence that the required notices were actually received by the taxpayer. It is the registry receipt issued by the mailing office and the affidavit of the person mailing which proves service made through registered mail.

In this case, while the registry return receipt as well as the certification issued by the Postmaster were presented by the BIR as evidence, the Postmaster who issued the same was not the person who actually served the PAN. The server of the letter neither executed a judicial affidavit nor was he presented before the CTA. Hence, the return receipt and certification are not sufficient to prove that the taxpayer actually received the PAN.

Therefore, the assessment is void because the taxpayer’s due process rights were violated. (Ruben U. Yu v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 9595 dated June 15, 2020)

A Revenue Regional Director may appoint a sub-agent to examine a taxpayer and issue assessments in relation thereto when not prohibited from doing so by the CIR.

LOA empowers and enables a revenue officer to examine the books of account and other accounting records of a taxpayer for the purpose of collecting the correct amount of tax. The power to authorize examination of a taxpayer and issue assessments is primarily lodged with the CIR. However, the same may be delegated to the Revenue Regional Directors (“RRD”). The latter may likewise appoint a substitute if the CIR has not prohibited him from doing so.

In this case, the Memorandum Referrals, which supposedly appointed other revenue officers to continue the investigation on all of the taxpayer’s internal revenue taxes, were only signed by the OIC-Chief of the LT Regular Audit Division I of the BIR. They may be deemed authorized to do the investigation without need for a new LOA only if it were the RRD who signed the Memorandum Referrals. However, the RRD was not the one who signed the Memorandum Referrals. Thus, this made the assessment conducted by the revenue officers appointed under the Memorandum Referrals void for lack of authority. (Nyk-FilJapan Shipping Corp., v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 9120 dated June 25, 2020)

A Memorandum of Assignment signed by the Assistant Commissioner/Head Revenue Executive Assistant of the Large Taxpayers Service is a valid authority. Under RMO No. 29-07, the equivalent of an RRD in the Large Taxpayers Service is the Assistant Commissioner/Head Revenue Executive Assistant. (Sumitomo Corporation-Philippine Branch v. Commission of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 9422 dated June 30, 2020)

Once a taxpayer denies having received assessments notices, it becomes incumbent upon the BIR to prove by competent evidence that the taxpayer received the same.

Taxpayer denies receiving the FLD/FAN for the subject deficiency tax assessment and argues that absent the required notice, the subject assessment is void. The BIR insists that the FAN/FLD was sent, released and mailed, and that the same was validly served to the taxpayer by registered mail.

The CTA held that CIR failed to prove that the taxpayer actually received the FLD/FAN. The BIR shall issue the FLD/FAN, which shall be sent to the taxpayer only by registered mail or by personal delivery. Considering the mandatory nature of this requirement, it is essential for the BIR to establish and prove that the said FLD/FAN were duly served to the taxpayer. Due process likewise requires that the taxpayer must actually receive the assessment. Once a taxpayer denies having received the assessment notices, the CIR BIR must prove by competent evidence that the assessment notices were indeed received by the taxpayer.

To prove the fact of mailing, the BIR must have presented the registry receipt issued by the Bureau of Posts or the registry return card, which would supposedly be signed by the taxpayer or an authorized representative. In the absence thereof, a Certification or any other document executed with the intervention of the Bureau of Posts must have been presented. In this case, the BIR presented transmittal letters, which only prove that the FLN/FAN were forwarded to the Administrative Division and Post Office for mailing, but the same do not establish the actual mailing and receipt thereof by the taxpayer. (Square One Realty Corporation v. Commission of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 9484 dated June 30, 2020)

RMC No. 56-2020, June 2, 2020
This further clarifies the manner of filing of returns and payment of internal revenue taxes until June 14, 2020.

Concerned taxpayers may file their tax returns and pay the internal revenue taxes at the nearest Authorized Agent Banks (“AABs”), notwithstanding Revenue District Office (“RDO”) jurisdiction. They may also file and pay the same to the concerned Revenue Collection Officers (“RCOs”) of the nearest RDO, even in areas where there are AABs. Provided, that payment of internal revenue taxes in cash should not exceed ₱20,000.00 while check payment will have no limitation if the same is made with the RCO in the district office until June 14, 2020. Provided further, that all checks shall be made payable to Bureau of Internal Revenue (with or without “IFO Name and TIN of the taxpayer” written on the check, as previously required), and that the name and branch of the receiving AAB may no longer be indicated therein.

Taxpayers may also file their tax returns through the eBIRForms facility and use the following payment options:

a. Over-the-Counter payment through AABs;
b. RCOs of the nearest RDO even in areas where there are AABs; and
c. Electronic/Online Payment:
i. LandBank of the Philippines’ (LBP) Link.Biz Portal – for taxpayers who have ATM account with LBP and/or for holders of Bancnet ATM/Debit/Prepaid Card and taxpayer utilizing PesoNet facility (depositor of RCBC and Robinsons Bank)
ii. Development Bank of the Philippines' (DBP) Pay Tax Online – for holders of Visa/Mastercard Credit Card and/or Bancnet ATM/Debit Card
iii. Union Bank Online Web and Mobile Payment Facility – for taxpayers who have an account with the Union Bank of the Philippines
iv. Mobile Payment (GCash/Paymaya)

Taxpayers who are enrolled in the eFPS shall continue to file through the system and settle their tax liabilities with the AABs where they are enrolled. Those who are not mandated to file and pay electronically has the option to use the eBIRForms facility or to file their tax returns manually. Filing of “no payment returns” shall also be made through the eBIRForms facility.

In case of unavailability of internet connection to electronically file such returns, taxpayers shall manually file the returns to the nearest RDO. In case of the unavailability of the BIR’s electronic filing facilities, taxpayers shall manually file the returns and pay the corresponding taxes due thereon through the abovementioned payment venues.

RMC No. 59-2020, June 9, 2020
This amends the provisions of RMC No. 47-2020 relative to the temporary measures adopted by taxpayers on the receipting/invoicing requirements pursuant to “Bayanihan to Heal as One Act.”.

All taxpayers who adopted the said workaround procedures/temporary measures during the periods of ECQ and MECQ are required to submit their Summary of Temporary Receipts/Invoices Issued (format is in Annex “A” of RMC No. 47-2020) within ninety (90) days from the date of lifting of ECQ and/or MECQ. The workaround procedures provided in the said Circular shall be applicable to taxpayers registered in areas under ECQ and MECQ.

Business entities covered under GCQ and/or MGCQ shall discontinue the use of the temporary measures allowed in RMC No. 47-2020. The use of the same during the said periods shall be considered a violation of the receipting/invoicing requirements.

RMC No. 61-2020, June 15, 2020.

This extended the deadline for availment of Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies (“TAD”) provided under RR No. 4-2019, as amended, from June 22, 2020 to December 31, 2020.

RR No. 16-2020, June 25, 2020
This further suspends the due dates in the application for and the ninety (90)-day period to process VAT refund/claim for taxable quarters affected by the declaration of the national state of emergency.

The filing of claims for VAT refund for the following taxable quarters shall be until the following specified due dates:

Calendar Quarter ending March 31, 2018 – July 15, 2020
Fiscal Quarter ending April 30, 2018 – July 31, 2020
Fiscal Quarter ending May 31, 2018 – August 15, 2020
Calendar Quarter ending June 30, 2018 – August 31, 2020

Said due dates do not apply to areas not yet declared to be in a general community quarantine state. In which case, the deadline shall be thirty (30) days from the lifting of the Enhanced Community Quarantine (“ECQ”) or modified ECQ in the affected areas of taxpayer-claimant or the above stated deadlines, whichever comes later.

The 90-day period of processing VAT refund claims shall be suspended in areas where ECQ or modified ECQ is still in force.

SEC Notice dated June 3, 2020
This provides for the implementation of online applications with the Company Registration and Monitoring Department.

The SEC will implement the use of online platform applications through specified links/electronic mail gateways for online applications to the Company Registration and Monitoring Department. Only those applications what have been assessed and approved for payment through online processing will be entertained at the CRMD premises.

SEC Notice dated June 17, 2020
This provides for the cessation of the mandatory 30-day grace period under Sec. 4(aa) of the Bayanihan to Heal As One Act.

The 30-day mandatory grace period for loans shall no longer apply effective June 1, 2020, pursuant to IATF Resolution No. 40, dated 27 May 2020, which already places majority of provinces and cities under GCQ or MGCQ.

With the lifting of the ECQ in the majority of the provinces and cities, the condition for the grant of the 30-day grace period under the Bayanihan Act is also no longer present.

SEC Notice dated June 30, 2020
This announces the adjustment of deadlines for annual reports.

The schedule for filing Annual Financial Statement shall largely remain the same, as follows:

Corporations, which held their annual stockholders’ meetings during the ECQ and MECQ in the National Capital Region, may submit their GIS until August 31, 2020, without incurring penalties.

All corporations shall comply with the SEC’s directive that submissions to the SEC Main Office shall be made through courier services, including express delivery services, or through registered mail using the SENS facility at https://sens.secexpress.ph.

IC Circular Letter No. 2020-69, June 11, 2020
This provides guidelines on the issuance of temporary license to new insurance agent during the state of public health emergency due to the Covid-19.

1. The scope covers the process in applying for, and the criteria for the grant of, a temporary license for individual agents during the implementation of community quarantine, social distancing, or "mass or work gatherings" rules and regulations imposed by the President or authorized government agencies;

2. Applicants should possess all qualifications under the Insurance Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 10607 and the existing rules and regulations issued by the Insurance Commission without the need to take and pass the qualifying insurance agent's examinations;

3. All applications must be electronically submitted to the Insurance Commission by the sponsoring insurance company which the applicant wishes to represent through the Enhanced Licensing System by uploading the following:

a. Duly accomplished application form accompanied by a documentary stamp tax (“DST”); and
b. Certification from the sponsoring insurance company to be signed by an officer with a position of at least Vice-President.

4. The licensing fee in the amount of ₱1,515.00 for the individual agent's license shall be paid by the applicant to the sponsoring insurance company. The sponsoring insurance company shall remit the applicant's license fee on behalf of the applicant to the Insurance Commission;

5. All temporary licenses issued will be valid until December 31, 2020 and shall automatically expire on such date; provided that, it shall automatically expire once the applicant passes or fails the qualifying insurance agent's examination or fails to take the said examination once Section 1 of IC CL No. 2020-12 is lifted;

6. Individuals issued with temporary insurance agent license must be under the supervision of a duly licensed agent who will oversee his/her work and conduct thru the utilization of Information and Communication Technology, such as but not limited to, teleconferencing, video conferencing, computer conferencing, or audio conferencing;

7. A license issued is subject to cancellation or revocation if the licensee violates the insurance laws or if the interests of the insured or the public are endangered;

8. In the performance of their fiduciary duties and responsibilities, all temporary licensee shall become liable to all the duties, requirements, liabilities and penalties to which an insurance agent is subject; and

9. A temporary agent's license may be converted to a regular agent's license by completion of all requirements and after the passing of qualifying insurance agent's examinations. All applications for regular license must be submitted through the Enhanced Licensing System. The regular license’s validity period shall be reckoned from the date of the issuance of the temporary agent's license and no additional license fee shall be required.

IC Circular Letter No. 2020-73, June 14, 2020
This provides guidelines on the adoption of a Regulatory Sandbox Framework for Insurance Tenchonoly (“InsurTech”) Innovations.

A “Regulatory Sandbox” means a controlled environment with a system set up by a licensed insurance provider in collaboration with another person, natural or juridical, licensed or not by the IC, that allows a small scale and live testing of technical innovations operating under special circumstance/s, allowance/s, and/or other limited and time-bound supervision.

Here are the following guidelines:

1. No Regulatory Sandbox that involves the doing an insurance business or the performance of any act that will require licensing and/or regulation by the IC shall be adopted and implemented unless approved by the IC.

2. Natural or juridical persons who intend to participate in a Regulatory Sandbox but whose businesses are not regulated by the IC and whose collaboration will require the performance of acts that will result in business or transactions that will require licensing, regulation or approval by the IC, i.e. Fintech start-ups, etc., the same must first comply with existing regulations issued by the IC, insofar as applicable, before submitting any application for participation in a Regulatory Sandbox.

3. A Regulatory Sandbox shall be operated in Experimentation Cycle/s that will be implemented one at a time and subsequently evaluated and finalized first before commencing any subsequent Experimentation Cycle/s.

4. The Experimental Cycle, if approved by the IC, shall last for a maximum period not exceeding one (1) year but such can be extended for a period not exceeding six (6) months, provided that the Applicant shall submit a written justification.

5. Any person/s intending to apply for participation in a Regulatory Sandbox shall submit a formal proposal and shall submit the required documents to the IC's Regulation, Enforcement and Prosecution Division ("REPD"), whether in hard copy, flash drive or compact disc.

6. The REPD shall receive any and all applications under this Circular Letter and determine whether or not the required documentation is complete and whether the applications exhibit the parameters provided in this Circular Letter. The REPD may require additional information or documents for clarificatory matters only, if needed.

7. If the IC is satisfied with the recommendations of the REPD, the latter shall issue a letter of approval ("Approval") to the successful Applicants. The successful Applicant will be allowed to operate and proceed with live testing or experiments within the period stated in this Circular Letter.

8. The successful Applicants shall mandatorily submit a monthly written report to the IC, through the REPD.

9. At the end of the Experimentation Cycle, or if the successful Applicants achieve the results desired earlier than the end of the Experimentation Cycle, the successful Applicant shall submit a written Completion Report to the REPD.

10. Any information in the custody of or within the knowledge of the IC pertaining to the Applicants' participation in a Regulatory Sandbox, including its successful launching, shall be considered as trade secrets in accordance with applicable intellectual property laws of the Philippines.

IC Circular Letter No. 2020-74, June 18, 2020
This provides guidelines on the use of videoconferencing for the conduct of hearings and other proceedings before the Claims Adjudication Division (“CAD”) and REPD.

The hearings through videoconferencing shall cover all litigants and counsel before the CAD and REPD; and, insofar as applicable, may apply to all stages of proceedings, including, but not limited to hearings on various motions, pre-trial, mediation proceedings, and trial proper.

The in-person appearances, testimonies and experiences of the litigants and parties shall be closely resembled in remote appearances and testimonies of the litigants and parties in the videoconference proceedings. ln the same manner, the dignity and solemnity of proceedings before the CAD and REPD shall at all times be mirrored in videoconference proceedings.

The CAD and REPD are provided with software licenses for CISCO WEBEX MEETINGS to host the videoconference proceedings. No other platforms or software shall be used for the videoconference proceedings.

 BSP Memorandum No. M-2020-045, June 1, 2020This provides answers for the Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ”) on the Implementing Rules and Regulations (“IRR”) of Section 4 (aa) of Republic Act No. 11469, otherwise known as the “Bayanihan to Heal as One Act” (“Bayanihan Act”):

1. The 30-day mandatory grace period for loans under the Bayanihan Act shall no longer apply effective June 1, 2020, due to placing of majority of provinces and cities under GCQ or modified GCQ. Therefore, all loan payments with principal and interest falling due from June 1, 2020 onwards shall be due and demandable.

The termination of the grant of the 30-day grace period is premised on the lifting of the restrictions on economic activities in majority of the provinces and cities in the country.

2. The 30-day mandatory grace period under the Bayanihan Act shall continue to apply to loan and/or interest payments falling due until May 31, 2020, even if the new due dates will fall on or after June 1, 2020.

3. Borrowers that were granted 30-day grace period on all their loan payments in March, April and May 2020 are not required to pay in June 2020. Effective June 1, 2020, the borrower shall only pay the amount of the loan principal and/or interest that is effectively due in June 2020 or for one month following the application of the 30-day grace period. The last payment due date of the loan is effectively extended by a period equivalent to the grace period granted for the duration of the ECQ. For accrued interest in March, April and May 2020, the borrower may pay it in lumpsum in June 2020 or on a staggered basis over the remaining term of the loan.

4. Borrowers have the option to pay the interest accrued during the mandatory grace period in lumpsum on the next payment due date or on a staggered basis over the remaining life of the loan. But covered institutions may offer less onerous payment arrangements that include setting new payment due dates for interest accrued during the mandatory grace period.

5. Further, no DST shall be imposed on credit extension and credit restructuring, micro-lending including those obtained from pawnshops and extensions thereof during the ECQ period.

BSP Memorandum No. M-2020-049, June 9, 2020
The Monetary Board approved the relaxation in the regulations governing the submission of reports and other documents to the BSP-Financial Supervision Sector (“BSP-FSS”).

The submission of required reports for BSP-FSS that fall due within the months of March to June 2020 is suspended until further notice, except for the submission of the Financial Reporting Package for Banks, the Consolidated Foreign Exchange (FX) Position Report, event-driven report requirements and reserve requirement-related reports.

The reserve requirement-related reports include the following: (a) Consolidated Daily Report of Condition; (b) Weekly Report on Required and Available Reserves Against Deposit Liabilities; (c) Consolidated Report on Required and Available Reserves Against Deposit Substitutes and Special Financing; and (d) Special Financing and Weekly Reserve Report on Trust and Other Fiduciary Accounts.

BSP Memorandum No. M-2020-051, June 17, 2020
This supplements and publishes the FAQs on the additional eligible credit instruments, revised loan documents and availment procedures for the BSP rediscount facilities.

For purposes of rediscounting loan availments, banks are required to submit a certification signed by the bank's authorized officer/s indicating the following, as applicable:

1. The credits are booked under the regular banking unit of the rediscounting bank;
2. The related end-user borrowers are operating during the time of the ECQ;
3. The nature of economic activity covered by the loan is included in the list specified by the Department of Trade and Industry in its Memorandum Circular No. 20-08 dated 20 March 2020;
4. The maturities of credit instruments were extended pursuant to R.A. No. 11469 and its IRR;
5. All electronic copies submitted are true and faithful copies of the original; and
6. The bank acknowledges that any misrepresentation shall be subject to appropriate enforcement actions, among other legal recourses available to the BSP.

The List of Accounts for Rediscounting for submission to the BSP has been revised to include columns for the original due date and the extended due date in consideration of credit instruments which were granted a mandatory 30-day grace period pursuant to BSP Memorandum No. M-2020-017 dated April 1, 2020 and Section 4 (aa) of R.A. No. 11469 and its IRR.