Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. Social Security Commission
Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. Social Security Commission
EN BANC
BARRERA, J.:
On October 15, 1958, the Social Security Commission issued its Circular
No. 22 of the following tenor: .
Not satisfied with this ruling, petitioner comes to this Court on appeal.
The single issue involved in this appeal is whether or not Circular No. 22
is a rule or regulation, as contemplated in Section 4(a) of Republic Act
1161 empowering the Social Security Commission "to adopt, amend and
repeal subject to the approval of the President such rules and regulations
as may be necessary to carry out the provisions and purposes of this
Act."
A rule is binding on the courts so long as the procedure fixed for its
promulgation is followed and its scope is within the statutory authority
granted by the legislature, even if the courts are not in agreement with the
policy stated therein or its innate wisdom (Davis, op. cit., 195-197). On
the other hand, administrative interpretation of the law is at best merely
advisory, for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means.
The case of People v. Jolliffe (G.R. No. L-9553, promulgated on May 30,
1959) cited by appellant, does not support its contention that the circular
in question is a rule or regulation. What was there said was merely that a
regulation may be incorporated in the form of a circular. Such statement
simply meant that the substance and not the form of a regulation is
decisive in determining its nature. It does not lay down a general
proposition of law that any circular, regardless of its substance and even
if it is only interpretative, constitutes a rule or regulation which must be
published in the Official Gazette before it could take effect.
The case of People v. Que Po Lay (50 O.G. 2850) also cited by appellant
is not applicable to the present case, because the penalty that may be
incurred by employers and employees if they refuse to pay the
corresponding premiums on bonus, overtime pay, etc. which the
employer pays to his employees, is not by reason of non-compliance with
Circular No. 22, but for violation of the specific legal provisions contained
in Section 27(c) and (f) of Republic Act No. 1161.