Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CASES Statutory Construction
CASES Statutory Construction
Same; Same; Case at bar, appeal made out of Same; Treachery; Shot from a distance indicates
time given due course.Considering that treachery. The act of shooting Siyang at a
appellants right to seek a review of his case was distance, without the least expectation on his
lost by reason of his counsels inadvertence and part that he would be assaulted, is murder
considering further that the briefs have been because of the attendance of the qualifying
submitted, the Court has resolved to review the circumstance of treachery. Appellant Tamani
record to obviate any possible miscarriage of deliberately employed a mode of execution
justice (Cf. Marbury vs. Madison, 1 Cranch 135, 2 which tended directly and specially to insure the
L. ed. 60, where Chief Justice Marshall discussed consummation of the killing without any risk to
the merits of a mandamus action although the himself arising from the defense which the
Court held that it had no power to issue that victim could have made.
writ.).
Same; Complex Crime; Results of two volleys of
Criminal Law; Alibi: Two-kilometer distance from shots constitute separate offenses.The
the scene of the crime is a weak alibi.Appellant infliction of the four fatal gunshot wounds on
Tamanis defense of alibi, which can be Siyang and of the wound in the palm of the
fabricated with facility, cannot be given serious mayors right hand was not the result of a single
consideration. Assuming that he was in Barrio act. The injuries were the consequences of two
Aniog in the afternoon and night of June 11th, it volleys of gunshots. Hence, the assaults on
was physically possible for him to be at the scene Siyang and the mayor cannot be categorized as a
of the shooting at the time that it was complex crime. People vs. Tamani, 55 SCRA 153,
perpetrated and return to the house of Vice- Nos. L-22160 & L-22161 January 21, 1974
Mayor Tamani in Barrio Aniog. That place was
FACTS: Tamani was convicted of murder and
only two kilometers from the store of Pedro Pua.
attempted murder by the lower court on
The victims were shot in front of the store.
February 14, 1963. Upon receipt of a copy of this
Same; Same; Alibi when acceptable as a order, his counsel subsequently filed a motion
defense.The settled rule is that an alibi, to be for reconsideration on March 1, 1963, which was
tenable, must be such as to preclude the denied. The lower court sent a copy of the order
1
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
of denial to the counsel by registered mail on July technical in nature, in which case it is the head
13, 1963 through the counsels wife. Counsel thereof who shall be anBwerable. Following the
filed his appeal only on September 10, 1963, canon of reddendo singula singulis, teachers
forty-eight days from July 24th, which is the should apply to the words pupHs and students
reglementary fifteen-day period for appeal. and heads of establishments of arts and trades
Appellees contend that the case should be to the word apprentices.
dismissed on the ground that the appeal was
Same; Same; Same; No substantial distinction
forty-eight days late. They invoked Sec. 6, Rule
between the academic and the non-academic
122 of the Rules of Court which states that an
schools insofar as torts committed by their
appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days
students are concerned.There is really no
from the promulgation or notice of the judgment
substantial distinction between the academic
or order appealed from.
and the non-academic schools insofar as torts
ISSUE: Whether the fifteen-day period should committed by their students are concerned. The
commence from the date of promulgation of the same vigilance is expected from the teacher over
decision. the students under his control and supervision,
whatever the nature of the school where he is
RULING: Yes. Using the rule of reddendo singula
teaching, The suggestion in the Sxconde and
singulis, the word promulgation should be
Mercado Cases is that the provision would make
construed as referring to judgment, while
the teacher or even the head of the school of arts
notice should be construed as referring to
and trades liable for an injury caused by any
order. Tamanis appeal is therefore 58 days
student in its custody but if that same tort were
late, not 47, as Appellees contend; he only had a
committed in an academic school, no liability
day left from the receipt of his wife of the notice
would attach to the teacher or the school head.
on July 13. Nonetheless, the court decided to act
All other circumstances being the same, the
upon the appeal at hand to obviate any possible
teacher or the head of the academic school
miscarriage of justice.
would be absolved whereas the teacher and the
head of the nonacademic school would be held
liable, and simply because the latter is a school
Amadora vs. Court of Appeals of arts and trades.
Civil Law; Torts; Article 2180 of the Civil Code
should apply to all schools, academic as well as
non-academic.After an exhaustive ISSUE: Whether or not Colegio de San Jose-
examination of the problem, the Court has come Recoletos, an academic school, is liable under
to the conclusion that the provision in question Article 2180 of the Civil Code for the tortuous act
should apply to all schools, academic as well as of its students.
non-academic. Where the school is academic
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court made a re-
rather than technical or vocational in nature,
examination of the provision on the last
responsibility for the tort committed by the
paragraph of Article 2180 which provides:
student will attach to the teacher in charge of
such student, following the first part of the Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of
provision. This is the general rule. In the case of arts and trades shall be liable for damages
establishments of arts and trades, it is the head caused by their pupils and students or
thereof, and only he, who shall be held liable as apprentices so long as they remain in their
an exception to the general rule. In other words, custody.
teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of
The Supreme Court said that it is time to update
their students except where the school is
the interpretation of the above law due to the
2
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
changing times where there is hardly a At any rate, the REMEDY of the teacher, to avoid
distinction between schools of arts and trade direct liability, and for the school, to avoid
and academic schools. That being said, the subsidiary liability, is to show proof that he, the
Supreme Court ruled that ALL schools, academic teacher, exercised the necessary precautions to
or not, may be held liable under the said prevent the injury complained of, and the school
provision of Article 2180. exercised the diligence of a bonus pater familias.
The Supreme Court however clarified that the In this case however, the Physics teacher in
school, whether academic or not, should not be charge was not properly named, and there was
held directly liable. Its liability is only subsidiary. no sufficient evidence presented to make the
said teacher-in-charge liable. Absent the direct
For non-academic schools, it would be the
liability of the teachers because of the foregoing
principal or head of school who should be
reason, the school cannot be held subsidiarily
directly liable for the tortuous act of its students.
liable too.
This is because historically, in non-academic
schools, the head of school exercised a closer
administration over their students than heads of
National Association of Trade Unions-Republic
academic schools. In short, they are more hands
Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter vs. Torres
on to their students.
G.R. No. 93468. December 29, 1994.
For academic schools, it would be the teacher-in-
charge who would be directly liable for the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS
tortuous act of the students and not the dean or (NATU)-REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK
the head of school. SUPERVISORS CHAPTER, petitioner, vs. HON.
RUBEN D. TORRES, SECRETARY OF LABOR AND
The Supreme Court also ruled that such liability
EMPLOYMENT and REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK,
does not cease when the school year ends or
respondents.
when the semester ends. Liability applies
whenever the student is in the custody of the Labor Law; Certification Election; An employer
school authorities as long as he is under the has no standing to question the process since
control and influence of the school and within its this is the sole concern of the workers.
premises, whether the semester has not yet Respondent Bank has no legal personality to
begun or has already ended at the time of the move for the dismissal of the petition for
happening of the incident. As long as it can be certification election on the ground that its
shown that the student is in the school premises supervisory employees are in reality managerial
in pursuance of a legitimate student objective, in employees. An employer has no standing to
the exercise of a legitimate student right, and question the process since this is the sole
even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student concern of the workers. The only exception is
right, and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate where the employer itself has to file the petition
student privilege, the responsibility of the school pursuant to Art. 258 of the Labor Code because
authorities over the student continues. Indeed, of a request to bargain collectively.
even if the student should be doing nothing
more than relaxing in the campus in the Same; Employees; Definition of Managerial
company of his classmates and friends and Employee and Supervisory Employee.A
enjoying the ambience and atmosphere of the managerial employee is (a) one who is vested
school, he is still within the custody and subject with powers or prerogatives to lay down and
to the discipline of the school authorities under execute management policies, or to hire,
the provisions of Article 2180. transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge,
assign or discipline employees; or (b) one who is
3
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
vested with both powers or prerogatives. A Labor Law; Certification Election; Respondent
supervisory employee is different from a Banks Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers and
managerial employee in the sense that the Controllers, being confidential employees of the
supervisory employee, in the interest of the Bank are disqualified from joining or assisting
employer, effectively recommends such petitioner labor union or joining, assisting or
managerial actions, if the exercise of such forming any other labor organization, including a
managerial authority is not routinary in nature supervisors union .I concur in the majority
but requires the use of independent judgment. opinions conclusion that respondent Banks
Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers and
Same; Same; Same; Branch Managers, Cashiers
Controllers, being confidential employees of the
and Controllers of respondent Bank are not
Bank, are disqualified from joining or assisting
managerial employees but supervisory
petitioner labor union or joining, assisting or
employees.Ranged against these definitions
forming any other labor organization, including a
and after a thorough examination of the
supervisors union.
evidence submitted by both parties, we arrive at
a contrary conclusion. Branch Managers, Same; Same; Public respondent is correct in
Cashiers and Controllers of respondent Bank are disqualifying from membership in a labor union
not managerial employees but supervisory of supervisors, those who are Department
employees. The finding of public respondent Managers and Assistant Managers.It would be
that bank policies are laid down and/or executed incongruous for a Department Manager who, as
through the collective action of these employees already stated, is usually a Vice-President, to be
is simply erroneous. His discussion on the a member of the same labor organization as his
division of their duties and responsibilities does messenger or supervisory account executives. It
not logically lead to the conclusion that they are would be even more untenable and dangerous
managerial employees, as the term is defined in for a Department Manager who usually is a Vice-
Art. 212, par.(m). President, being a member of a labor union, to
be designated a union representative for
National Association of Trade Unions-Republic
purposes of collective bargaining with the
Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter vs. Torres
management of which he is a part. I think the
Same; Same; Same; It is the nature of the public respondent is correct in disqualifying from
employees functions, and not the nomenclature membership in a labor union of supervisors,
or title given to his job, which determines those who are Department Managers and
whether he has rank-and-file, supervisory or Assistant Managers. National Association of
managerial status.The job description of a Trade Unions-Republic Planters Bank
Cashier does not mention any authority on his Supervisors Chapter vs. Torres, 239 SCRA 546,
part to lay down policies, either. On the basis of G.R. No. 93468 December 29, 1994
the foregoing evidence, it is clear that subject
employees do not participate in policy-making
but are given approved and established policies G.R. No. 96663. August 10, 1999.
to execute and standard practices to observe,
PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC.,
leaving little or no discretion at all whether to
petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SECRETARY OF
implement said policies or not. It is the nature of
LABOR, MED-ARBITER NAPOLEON V.
the employees functions, and not the
FERNANDO & PEPSI-COLA SUPERVISORY
nomenclature or title given to his job, which
EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION-UOEF,
determines whether he has rank-and-file,
respondents.
supervisory or managerial status.
4
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
Labor Law; Remedial Law; Action; Moot and Employees (ACAE) vs. Hon. Pura Ferrer-Calleja, in
Academic; It is unnecessary to indulge in her capacity as Director, Bureau of Labor
academic discussion of a moot question. The Relations, et al., 203 SCRA 597, 598, [1991], is in
issue in G.R. No. 96663, whether or not the point, to wit: x x x It is a well-settled rule that a
supervisors union can be affiliated with a certification proceedings is not a litigation in the
Federation with two (2) rank and file unions sense that the term is ordinarily understood, but
directly under the supervision of the former, has an investigation of a nonadversarial and fact
thus become moot and academic in view of the finding character. (Associated Labor Unions
Unions withdrawal from the federation. In a [ALU] v. Ferrer-Calleja, 179 SCRA 127 [1989];
long line of cases (Narciso Nakpil, et al. vs. Hon. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation
Crisanto Aragon, et al., G.R. No. L-24087, January v. NLRC, 183 SCRA 451 [1990]). Thus, the
22, 1980, 95 SCRA 85; Toribio v. Bidin, et al., G.R. technical rules of evidence do not apply if the
No. L-37960, February 28, 1980, 96 SCRA 361; decision to grant it proceeds from an
Gumaua v. Espino, G.R. No. L-36188-37586, examination of the sufficiency of the petition as
February 29, 1980, 96 SCRA 402), the Court well as a careful look into the arguments
dismissed the petition for being moot and contained in the position papers and other
academic. In the case of F.C. Fisher v. Yangco documents. At any rate, the Court applies the
Steamship Co., March 31, 1915, the Court held: established rule correctly followed by the public
It is unnecessary, however to indulge in respondent that an order to hold a certification
academic discussion of a moot question. The election is proper despite the pendency of the
action would have been dismissed at any time on petition for cancellation of the registration
a showing of the facts as they were. The question certificate of the respondent union. The
left for the court was a moot one. Its Resolution rationale for this is that at the time the
would have been useless. Its judgment would respondent union filed its petition, it still had the
have been impossible of execution. legal personality to perform such act absent an
order directing the cancellation.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Even if a case were
moot and academic, a statement of the Same; Same; Court considers the position of
governing principle is appropriate in the confidential employees as included in the
resolution of dismissal for the guidance not only disqualification found in Article 245 as if the
of the parties but of others similarly situated.In disqualification of confidential employees were
the case of University of San Agustin, Inc., et al. written in the provision.In applying the doctrine
vs. Court of Appeals, et al., the court resolved the of necessary implication, we took into
case, ruling that even if a case were moot and consideration the rationale behind the
academic, a statement of the governing principle disqualification of managerial employees
is appropriate in the resolution of dismissal for expressed in Bulletin Publishing Corporation v.
the guidance not only of the parties but of others Sanchez, thus x x x if these managerial
similarly situated. x x x employees would belong to or be affiliated with
a Union, the latter might not be assured of their
Same; Labor Unions; Certification Election; An
loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of
order to hold a certification election is proper
interests. The Union can also become company
despite the pendency of the petition for
dominated with the presence of managerial
cancellation of the registration certificate of the
employees in Union membership. Stated
respondent union. Anent the issue of whether
differently, in the collective bargaining process,
or not the Petition to cancel/revoke registration
managerial employees are supposed to be on
is a prejudicial question to the petition for
the side of the employer, to act as its
certification election, the following ruling in the
representatives, and to see to it that its interest
case of Association of the Court of Appeals
are well protected. The employer is not assured
5
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
of such protection if these employees However, on 1992, or before the SC decision, the
themselves are union members. Collective PCEU issued a resolution withdrawing from the
bargaining in such a situation can become one- UOEF.
sided. It is the same reason that impelled this
Issue: Whether or not PCEU may be affiliated
Court to consider the position of confidential
with the rank-and-file unions.
employees as included in the disqualification
found in Art. 245 as if the disqualification of Held: PCEU's withdrawal from the affiliation
confidential employees were written in the made the case moot and academic. But for the
provision. If confidential employees could guidance of others similarly situated, the Court
unionize in order to bargain for advantages for ruled No.
themselves, then they could be governed by
their own motives rather than the interest of the If the intent of the law is to avoid a situation
employers. Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. where supervisors would merge with the rank
vs. Secretary of Labor, 312 SCRA 104, G.R. No. and file or where the supervisors' labor
96663, G.R. No. 103300 August 10, 1999 organization would represent conflicting
interests, then a local supervisors' union should
Facts: Pepsi-Cola Employees Organization-UOEF not be allowed to affiliate with the national
(PCEU) filed a petition for certification election federation of union of rank-and-file employees
with the Med-Arbiter seeking to be the exclusive where that federation actively participates in
bargaining agent of supervisors of Pepsi-Cola union activity in the company.
Philippines (Pepsi). The petition was granted, but
with the explicit statement that PCEU was The limitation is not confined to a case of
affiliated with Union de Obreros Estivadores de supervisors' wanting to join a rank-and-file
Filipinas (UOEF) and 2 other rank-and-file unions, union. The prohibition extends to a supervisors'
the PCLU and the PEUP. local union applying for membership in a
national federation the members of which
Pepsi then filed a petition for cancellation with include local unions of rank and file employees.
the BLR against PCEU, on the grounds that: (a) The intent of the law is clear especially where, as
the members of PCEU were managers and (b) a in this case at bar, the supervisors will be co-
supervisors' union cannot affiliate with a mingling with those employees whom they
federation whose members include the rank and directly supervise in their own bargaining unit.
file union of the same company. It also filed an
urgent ex-parte motion to suspend the In the collective bargaining process, managerial
certification election. employees are supposed to be on the side of the
employer, to act as its representatives, and to
PCEU argued that Art. 245 of the Labor Code, as see to it that its interests are well protected. The
amended by RA 6715, did not prohibit a local employer is not assured of such protection if
union composed of supervisory employees from these employees themselves are union
being affiliated to a federation which has local members. It is the same reason that impelled
unions with rank-and-file members as affiliates. this Court to consider the position of confidential
Furthermore, Book V, Rule II, Section 7 of the employees as included in the disqualification
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code found in Art. 245 as if the disqualification of
provides the grounds for cancellation of the confidential employees were written in the
registration certificate of a labor organization, provision. Said employees may act as spies of
and the inclusion of managerial employees is not either party to a collective bargaining
one of the grounds. agreement.
6
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
G.R. No. 109902. August 2, 1994.* ordinary or normal relationship to the usual
business of the employer. In this latter case, the
ALU-TUCP, Representing Members: ALAN
determination of the scope and parameters of
BARINQUE, with 13 others, namely: ENGR.
the project becomes fairly easy. It is unusual
ALAN G. BARINQUE, ENGR. DARRELL LEE
(but still conceivable) for a company to
ELTAGONDE, EDUARD H. FOOKSON, JR.,
undertake a project which has absolutely no
ROMEO R. SARONA, RUSSELL GACUS, JERRY
relationship to the usual business of the
BONTILAO, EUSEBIO MARIN, JR., LEONIDO
company; thus, for instance, it would be an
ECHAVEZ, BONIFACIO MEJOS, EDGAR S.
unusual steel-making company which would
BONTUYAN, JOSE G. GARGUENA, JR., OSIAS B.
undertake the breeding and production of fish or
DANDASAN, and GERRY I. FETALVERO, petition-
the cultivation of vegetables. From the
ers,vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
viewpoint, however, of the legal characterization
COMMISSION and NATIONAL STEEL
problem here presented to the Court, there
CORPORATION (NSC), respondents.
should be no difficulty in designating the
Labor Law; Project Employees; The services of employees who are retained or hired for the
project employees are co-terminus with the purpose of undertaking fish culture or the
project and may be terminated upon the end or production of vegetables as project
completion of the project for which they were employees, as distinguished from ordinary or
hired.The basic issue is thus whether or not regular employees, so long as the duration and
petitioners are properly characterized as scope of the project were determined or
project employees rather than regular specified at the time of engagement of the
employees of NSC. This issue relates, of course, project employees. For, as is evident from the
to an important consequence: the services of provisions of Article 280 of the Labor Code,
project employees are co-terminous with the quoted earlier, the principal test for determining
project and may be terminated upon the end or whether particular employees are properly
completion of the project for which they were characterized as project employees as
hired. Regular employees, in contrast, are legally distinguished from regular employees, is
entitled to remain in the service of their whether or not the project employees were
employer until that service is terminated by one assigned to carry out a specific project or
or another of the recognized modes of undertaking, the duration (and scope) of which
termination of service under the Labor Code. were specified at the time the employees were
engaged for that project.
Same; Same; Principal test for determining
whether particular employees are properly Same; Same; Project in the realm of business
characterized as project employees as and industry refer to particular job or
distinguished from regular employees, is undertaking that is within the regular or usual
whether or not the project employees were business of employer, but which is distinct and
assigned to carry out specific project or separate, and identifiable as such, from the
undertaking, the duration (and scope) of which undertakings of the company. Such job or
were specified at the time the employees were undertaking begins and ends at determined or
engaged for that project.It is evidently determinable times.In the realm of business
important to become clear about the meaning and industry, we note that project could refer
and scope of the term project in the present to one or the other of at least two (2)
context. The project for the carrying out of distinguishable types of activities. Firstly, a
which project employees are hired would project could refer to a particular job or
ordinarily have some relationship to the usual undertaking that is within the regular or usual
business of the employer. Exceptionally, the business of the employer company, but which is
project undertaking might not have an distinct and separate, and identifiable as such,
7
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
from the other under-takings of the company. means of evading otherwise applicable
Such job or undertaking begins and ends at requirements of labor laws.
determined or determinable times. The typical
Same; Same.The employment of each project
example of this first type of project is a particular
worker is dependent and co-terminous with the
construction job or project of a construction
completion or termination of the specific activity
company. A construction company ordinarily
or undertaking [for which] he was hired which
carries out two or more discrete identifiable
has been predetermined at the time of
construction projects: e.g., a twenty-five-storey
engagement. Since, there is no showing that
hotel in Makati; a residential condominium
they (13 complainants) were engaged to
building in Baguio City; and a domestic air
perform work-related activities to the business
terminal in Iloilo City. Employees who are hired
of respondent which is steel-making, there is no
for the carrying out of one of these separate
logical and legal sense of applying to them the
projects, the scope and duration of which has
proviso under the second paragraph of Article
been determined and made known to the
280 of the Labor Code, as amended.
employees at the time of employment, are
properly treated as project employees, and Same; Same; It has been held that the length of
their services may be lawfully terminated at service of a project employee is not the
completion of the project. controlling test of employment tenure but
whether or not the employment has been fixed
Same; Same; It could also refer to a particular job
for a specific project or undertaking the
or undertaking that is not within the regular
completion of which has been determined at the
business of the corporation but such job or
time of the engagement of the employee.The
undertaking must also be identifiably separate
present case therefore strictly falls under the
and distinct from the ordinary or regular
definition of project employees on paragraph
business operations of the employer. It also
one of Article 280 of the Labor Code, as
begins and ends at determined or determinable
amended. Moreover, it has been held that the
times.he term project could also refer to,
length of service of a project employee is not the
secondly, a particular job or undertaking that is
controlling test of employment tenure but
not within the regular business of the
whether or not the employment has been fixed
corporation. Such a job or undertaking must also
for a specific project or undertaking the
be identifiably separate and distinct from the
completion or termination of which has been
ordinary or regular business operations of the
determined at the time of the engagement of
employer. The job or undertaking also begins
the employee. (See Hilario Rada v. NLRC, G.R.
and ends at determined or determinable times.
No. 96078, January 9, 1992; and Sandoval
The case at bar presents what appears to our
Shipping, Inc. v. NLRC, 136 SCRA 674 (1985).
mind as a typical example of this kind of
project. Same; Same; Casual Employees; Second
paragraph of Article 282 of the Labor Code,
Same; Same; The basic requisite is that the
providing that an employee who served for at
designation of named employees as project
least one (1) year, shall be considered a regular
employees and their assignment to a specific
employee, relates to casual employees, not to
project, are effected and implemented in good
project employees.Petitioners next claim that
faith.Whichever type of project employment is
their service to NSC of more than six (6) years
found in a particular case, a common basic
should qualify them as regular employees. We
requisite is that the designation of named
believe this claim is without legal basis. The
employees as project employees and their
simple fact that the employment of petitioners
assignment to a specific project, are effected and
as project employees had gone beyond one (1)
implemented in good faith, and not merely as a
year, does not detract from, or legally dissolve,
8
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
their status as project employees. The second The NLRC in its questioned resolutions modified
paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code, the Labor Arbiters decision. It affirmed the
quoted above, providing that an employee who Labor Arbiters holding that petitioners were
has served for at least one (1) year, shall be project employees since they were hired to
considered a regular employee, relates to casual perform work in a specific undertaking the
employees, not to project employees. Five Years Expansion Program, the completion of
which had been determined at the time of their
Statutory Construction; The familiar
engagement and which operation was not
grammatical rule is that a proviso is to be
directly related to the business of steel
construed with reference to the immediately
manufacturing. The NLRC, however, set aside
preceding part of the provision to which it is
the award to petitioners of the same benefits
attached, and not to other sections thereof.In
enjoyed by regular employees for lack of legal
the case of Mercado, Sr. vs. National Labor
and factual basis.
Relations Commission, this Court ruled that the
proviso in the second paragraph of Article 280 The law on the matter is Article 280 of the Labor
relates only to casual employees and is not Code, where the petitioners argue that they are
applicable to those who fall within the definition regular employees of NSC because: (i) their
of said Articles first paragraph, i.e., project jobs are necessary, desirable and work-related
employees. The familiar grammatical rule is that to private respondents main business, steel-
a proviso is to be construed with reference to the making; and (ii) they have rendered service for
immediately preceding part of the provision to six (6) or more years to private respondent NSC.
which it is attached, and not to other sections
ISSUE:
thereof, unless the clear legislative intent is to
restrict or qualify not only the phrase Whether or not petitioners are considered
immediately preceding the proviso but also permanent employees as opposed to being
earlier provisions of the statute or even the only project employees of NSC.
statute itself as a whole. No such intent is
observable in Article 280 of the Labor Code, HELD:
which has been quoted earlier. ALU-TUCP vs. NO. Petition for Certiorari dismissed for lack of
National Labor Relations Commission, 234 SCRA merit. NLRC Resolutions affirmed.
678, G.R. No. 109902 August 2, 1994
Function of the proviso. Petitioners are not
FACTS: considered permanent employees. However,
[P]etitioners, as employees of private contrary to petitioners apprehensions, the
respondent National Steel Corporation (NSC), designation of named employees as project
filed separate complaints for unfair labor employees and their assignment to a specific
practice, regularization and monetary benefits project are effected and implemented in good
with the NLRC, Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch faith, and not merely as a means of evading
XII, Iligan City. The complaints were consolidated otherwise applicable requirements of labor laws.
and after hearing, the Labor Arbiter declared
petitioners regular project employees who shall
continue their employment as such for as long as On the claim that petitioners service to NSC of
such [project] activity exists, but entitled to the more than six (6) years should qualify them as
salary of a regular employee pursuant to the regular employees, the Supreme Court
provisions in the collective bargaining believed this claim is without legal basis. The
agreement. It also ordered payment of salary simple fact that the employment of petitioners
differentials. as project employees had gone beyond one (1)
year, does not detract from, or legally dissolve,
9
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
their status as project employees. The second is the latest expression of the intent of the
paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code, legislature. Inasmuch as the city mayor of San
quoted above, providing that an employee who Carlos City (Pangasinan) was receiving an annual
has served for at least one (1) year, shall be salary of P13,200.00, the respondents cannot be
considered a regular employee, relates to casual compelled to provide for an annual salary of
employees, not to project employees. P18,000.00 for the petitioner as city judge of the
said city. Arenas vs. City of San Carlos
(Pangasinan), 82 SCRA 318, No. L-34024 April 5,
1978
ISIDRO G. ARENAS, petitioner, vs. CITY OF SAN RA 5967 provides that second and third class
CARLOS (PANGASINAN), CITY COUNCIL OF SAN judges would receive an annual salary of
CARLOS CITY, JUAN C. LOMIBAO, BENJAMIN P18,000. Arenas was receiving a monthly salary
POSADAS, DOUGLAS D. SORIANO. BASILIO of P1000.00, P350 of which was from the
BULATAO, CATALINA B. CAGAMPAN, EUGENIO national government and the remaining P650
RAMOS, FRANCISCO CANCINO, ALFREDO comes from the city government. Petitioner had
VINLUAN, MARCELO LAPEA, LEOPOLDO C. repeatedly requested the city to enact the said
TULAGAN and TORIBIO PAULINO, in their RA but the Respondent City refused.
official capacities as City Mayor, City Vice
ISSUE:
Mayor, City Councilors and City Treasurer,
respectively, and Honorable Presiding Judge, W/N Judge Arenas should be granted the
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF SAN CARLOS CITY increase in his salary from P12,000 to P18,000.
(PANGASINAN), BRANCH X, respondents.
HELD:
Judges; Local Governments; Statutory
Looking at the Senate deliberations, the
Construction; Under RA. 5967 the salary of a city
intention in enacting the RA was that the salary
judge cannot be higher than that of the City
of a city judge should not be higher than the
Mayor.It is clear from the deliberation of the
salary of the city mayor. Moreover, exceptions,
Senate that the intention of Congress in enacting
as a general rule, should be strictly but
Republic Act No. 5967 was that the salary of a
reasonably construed; they extend only so far as
city judge should not be higher than the salary of
their language fairly warrants, and all doubts
the city mayor. The saving clause Provided,
should be resolved in favor of the general
however, That the salary of a city judge shall be
provisions rather than the exception. In case
at least P100.00 per month less than that of the
there is repugnancy between the proviso and the
city mayor. Qualifies the earlier provision which
main provision, the latter provision, whether a
fixes the salary of city judges for second and,
proviso or not, is given preference because it is
third class cities at P18,000.00 per annum.
the latest expression of the intent of the
Same; Same; Same; Where there is irreconcilable legislation, but more so because provisos are
repugnancy between a proviso and the body of negatively written and gives off a more
the statute, the former prevails as latest mandatory tone.
expression of legislative intent.The primary
purpose of a proviso is to limit the general
language of a statute. When there is Samson vs. Court of Appeals
irreconcilable repugnancy between the proviso
and the body of the statute, the former is given No. L-43182. November 25,1986.*
precedence over the latter on the ground that it
10
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
MARCIAL F. SAMSON, City Mayor of Caloocan Stated differently, it is not the powers and duties
City, THE CITY TREASURER, THE CITY AUDITOR, exercised and discharged by the Assistant
both of Caloocan City, and HERMOGENES Secretary to the Mayor as may be delegated and
LIWAG, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE assigned by the Mayor that makes the position
COURT OF APPEALS, CFI-RIZAL and FELICIANO C. of Assistant Secretary primarily confidential.
TALENS, respondents. While duties possibly involving confidential
matters are sometimes handled by the Assistant
Civil Service; Statutes; Purpose of Civil Service
Secretary to the Mayor, this does not necessarily
Law.We are not persuaded and find
transform the nature of the position itself as one
unacceptable such submission of the herein
that is primarily and highly confidential.
petitioners. As may be noted, the general
purpose of the Civil Service Law (Republic Act Same; Same; If the law intended assistant
No. 2260) is to insure and promote the secretaries to belong to the non-competitive
constitutional mandate regarding appointments service, it should have been worded:
only aecording to merit anjl fitness, and to Secretaries and their assistance."It should be
provide within the public service a progressive stressed that the position of Secretary to the
system of personal administration to insure the Mayor and that of Assistant Secretary to the
maintenance of an honest and efficient Mayor are two separate and distinct positions.
progressive and courteous civii service in the While both individuals may be called
Philippines. (Section2, R.A. 2260). secretary, nevertheless, one is certainly of al
higher category and rank than the other with the
Same; Same; Statutory exceptions are to be
added distinction that a Secretary must enjoy
strictly but reasonably construedUnder the
the confidence of the Mayor. However, the
rules of statutory construction. exceptions, as a
position of Assistant Secretary being of a lower
general rule, should be strictly, but reasonably
rank, need not carry the requisites attaching to
construed; they extend only so far as their
the primarily confidential position of the actual
language fairly warrants, and all doubts skould
Secretary to the Mayor. Moreover, if it was the
be resolved in favor of the general provisions
intention of Congress to include the Assistant
ratker than the exception. Where a general rule
Secretaries within the purview of Section 5(f) of
is established by statute with exceptions, the
R.A. No. 2260, as amended, so that Assistant
court will not curtaO the former nor add to the
Secretaries are also embraced in the non-
latter by implication x x x (Francisco, Statutory
competitive service, the law could have been
Construction, p. 304, citing 69 C.J., Section 643,
easily worded secretaries and their assistance.
pp. 10921093, italics supplied).
Same; Same; An assistant secretary although
Same; Same; Under a strict construction of R.A.
termed a secretaryv and may incidenially
2260, or who belong to the non-competitive
perform work tkat is confidential is technically
service, the position of Assistant Secretary to the
different from a secretary to the mayor.We
Mayor is deemed to belong to the competitive
are not disposed to agree with petitioners. What
service inasmuch only secretaries to governors
petitioners fail to consider is that an assistant
and mayors are expressly enumerated as non-
secretary, although described as secretary,
competitive.The parties are agreed that the
technically differs in function from the
nature of the functions attaching to office or
Secretaries. An assistant merely helps, aids
position ultimately determines whether such
or serves in a subordinate capacity to the person
position is policy-determining, primarily
who is actuaUy clothed with all the duties and
confidential or highly technicaL It is the nature of
responsibillties of secretary. Needless to say,
the position which finaiiy determines a position
the functions strictly attributable to a
to be primarily confidential (Leon A. Pinero, et al.
secretary and which would repose on such
vs. Rufino Hechanova, et al., 18 SCRA 421).
11
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
person the trust and confidence of the employer, ROBERTO OCAMPO, petitioner, vs. FERNANDO
is not automaticaUy vested or transferred to an BUENAVENTURA, JOSE VASQUEZ, ADOLFO
assistant secretary, because the latter simply BELDEROL, POTENCIANO ADOBAS, JR., and
assists or aids the former in the accomplishment JUDGE MATEO CANONOY, Court of First
of his duties. Samson vs. Court of Appeals, 145 Instance of Cebu, respondents.
SCRA 654, No. L-43182 November 25, 1986
Action; Cause of; Prejudicial question; No
FACTS: prejudicial question where me case is
administrative and the other civil. In
Petitioner Samson, the mayor of Caloocan,
accordance with Article 36 of the Civil Code, a
terminated the services of Respondent, Mr.
prejudicial question must be decided before any
Talens, as Assistant Secretary, through
criminal prosecution based on the same facts
Administrative Order No. 3, because of lack and
may proceed. There is no prejudicial question
loss of confidence, and appointed Mr. Liwag, co-
here since there is no criminal prosecution
Petitioner, to said position. RA 2260 (Civil Service
involved, the petitioners case before the
Act of 1959) Sec 5(f) declares that the position of
POLCOM being administrative in nature and the
secretaries to city mayors as non-competitive.
respondents case before the Court of First
Talens asserts his position was not covered by
Instance of Cebu is a simple civil suit for damages
the said act and, being permanently appointed,
not based on a crime but on alleged harassment
he can only be removed for a cause and after due
by the petitioner in charging them
process. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor
administratively before the City Mayor and
of Talens, declaring the order null and void. The
before the POLCOM.
Court of Appeals also affirmed said decision.
Same; Same; Action for damages bused on
ISSUE:
alleged malicious filing of administrative
WoN the termination of Talens illegal. complaint is premature while said complaint is
pending determination.The respondents
HELD: complaint for damages is based on their claim
Yes, Talens termination was illegal; his position that the administrative case filed against them
is not among those expressly declared by law as before the POLCOM is malicious, unfounded and
highly confidential. The nature of functions aimed to harass them. The veracity of this
attached to a position determines whether such allegation is not for us to determine, for if We
position is highly confidential. Where the law rule and allow the civil case for damages to
provides that positions in the government proceed on that ground, there is the possibility
belong to the competitive service, except those that the court a quo in deciding said case might
declared by law to be in the noncompetitive declare the respondents victims of harassment
service and those which are policy determining, and thereby indirectly interfere with the
primarily confidential or highly technical in proceedings before the POLCOM. The
nature, the legislature is presumed to have respondents case for damages before the lower
intended to exclude those not enumerated, for court is, therefore, premature as it was filed
otherwise, it would have included them in the during the pendency of the administrative case
enumeration. against the respondents before the POLCOM.
13
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
birthday party considered as a wholesome and nature and the respondents case before the
decent assemblage, the minors fell within the Court of First Instance of Cebu is a simple civil
exception and committed no violation of the suit for damages not based on a crime but on
ordinance in question. alleged harassment by the petitioner in charging
them administratively before the City Mayor and
Meanwhile, petitioner Roberto Ocampo on
before the POLCOM. A careful consideration of
September 19, 1966, filed a complaint with the
the record discloses that the principal issue in
City Mayors office charging the respondents
the complaint for damages is the alleged
policemen with serious misconduct, grave abuse
malicious filing of the administrative cases by the
of authority and commission of a felony. On
petitioner against the policemen respondents.
August 8, 1967, the Mayor issued Administrative
The determination of this question is primarily
Order No. 157 exonerating the policemen. On
dependent on the outcome of the administrative
March 17, 1969, a complaint was lodged with the
case before the POLCOM. The respondents
Police Commission (POLCOM) for serious
complaint for damages is based on their claim
misconduct, abuse of authority and commission
that the administrative case filed against them
of an act constituting a felony, which
before the POLCOM is malicious, unfounded and
administrative case is still pending up to the
aimed to harass them. The veracity of this
present.
allegation is not for us to determine, for if We
On June 4, 1969, respondents herein filed a rule and allow the civil case for damages to
complaint for damages against petitioner. On proceed on that ground, there is the possibility
May 22, 1970, petitioner filed a motion to that the court a quo in deciding said case might
dismiss and/or suspension of the trial of the case declare the respondents victims of harassment
on the merits on the following grounds: (1) and thereby indirectly interfere with the
existence of a prejudicial question and (2) that proceedings before the POLCOM. The
the action is premature. This motion was denied respondents case for damages before the lower
by respondent Judge in an order dated June 1, court is, therefore, premature as it was filed
1970. The petitioners motion for during the pendency of the administrative case
reconsideration thereof having been also against the respondents before the POLCOM.
denied, the instant petition was filed. The possibility cannot be overlooked that the
POLCOM may hand down a decision adverse to
In the meantime respondent Fernando the respondents, in which case the damage suit
Buenaventura died and he was substituted will become unfounded and baseless for wanting
herein by his widow, Guillerma Cosca in cause of action. Of persuasive force is the
Buenaventura, and his heirs, Carlos, Cora, Eva ruling in William H. Brown vs. Bank of the
Araceli, Philippine Islands and Santiago Freixas, 101 Phil.
The main question to be resolved is whether or 309, 312, where this Court said:
not the court a quo abused its discretion in x x x. In effect, plaintiff herein seeks to recover
denying petitioners motion to dismiss and/or damages upon the ground that the detainer case
suspend the trial of the case on the merits. The has been filed, and is being maintained,
first ground thereof (prejudicial question) is maliciously and without justification; but this
entirely inapplicable. In accordance with Article pretense affects the merits of said detainer case.
36 of the Civil Code, a prejudicial question must Should final judgment be eventually rendered in
be decided before any criminal prosecution that case in favor of the plaintiffs therein, such
based on the same facts may proceed. There is the one rendered in the municipal court, the
no prejudicial question here since there is no validity of the cause of action said lessors against
criminal prosecution involved, the petitioners Brown, would thereby be conclusively
case before the POLCOM being administrative in established, and, necessarily, his contention in
14
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
the present case would have to be rejected. Labor Code and its implementing rules, E.O. 247
Similarly, we cannot sustain the theory of Brown (reorganizing the POEA) and the POEA Rules, as
in the case at bar, without prejudging the issue well as the settlement of other liabilities the
in the detainer case, which is still pending. Until recruiter may incur.
final determination of said case, plaintiff herein
Same; Same; Same; Overseas recruiter is
cannot, and does not, have, therefore, a cause of
solidarily liable with foreign employer. The
action if any, on which we do not express our
bonds and escrow money are intended to insure
opinion against the herein defendants. In
more care on the part of local agent in its choice
short, the lower court has correctly held that the
of foreign principal to whom overseas workers
present action is premature, and, that,
are to be sent.It is true that these standby
consequently, the complaint herein does not set
guarantees are not imposed on local employers,
forth a cause of action against the defendants.
as the petitioner observes, but there is a simple
Ocampo vs. Buenaventura, 55 SCRA 267, No. L-
explanation for this distinction. Overseas
32293 January 24, 1974
recruiters are subject to more stringent
requirements because of the special risks to
which our workers abroad are subjected by their
JMM PROMOTIONS & MANAGEMENT, INC.,
foreign employers, against whom there is usually
petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
no direct or effective recourse. The overseas
COMMISSION and ULPIANO L. DE LOS SANTOS,
recruiter is solidarily liable with the foreign
respondents.
employer. The bonds and the escrow money are
Labor Law; Appeal Bond; POEA; Appeal bond is intended to insure more care on the part of the
required to perfect an appeal from a decision of local agent in its choice of the foreign principal
the POEA.The POEA Rules are clear. A reading to whom our overseas workers are to be sent.
thereof readily shows that in addition to the cash
Same; Same; Statutory Construction; In
and surety bonds and the escrow money, an
interpreting a statute, care should be taken that
appeal bond in an amount equivalent to the
every part be given effect. Construction that
monetary award is required to perfect an appeal
would render a provision inoperative should be
from a decision of the POEA. Obviously, the
avoided and inconsistent provisions should be
appeal bond is intended to further insure the
reconciled whenever possible as parts of
payment of the monetary award in favor of the
harmonious whole.It is a principle of legal
employee if it is eventually affirmed on appeal to
hermeneutics that in interpreting a statute (or a
the NLRC.
set of rules as in this case), care should be taken
Same; Same; Same; E.O. 247; Bonds are that every part thereof be given effect, on the
supposed to guarantee payments of valid and theory that it was enacted as an integrated
legal claims against employer. POEA can also go measure and not as a hodge-podge of conflicting
against these bonds for violations by the provisions. Ut res magis valeat quam pereat.
recruiter of the conditions of its license.It is Under the petitioners interpretation, the appeal
true that the cash and surety bonds and the bond required by Section 6 of the
money placed in escrow are supposed to aforementioned POEA Rule should be
guarantee the payment of all valid and legal disregarded because of the earlier bonds and
claims against the employer, but these claims escrow money it has posted. The petitioner
are not limited to monetary awards to would in effect nullify Section 6 as a superfluity
employees whose contracts of employment but we do not see any such redundancy; on the
have been violated. The POEA can go against contrary, we find that Section 6 complements
these bonds also for violations by the recruiter of Section 4 and Section 17. The rule is that a
the conditions of its license, the provisions of the construction that would render a provision
15
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
inoperative should be avoided; instead, National Bank in compliance with Section 17,
apparently inconsistent provisions should be Rule II, Book II of the same Rule, to primarily
reconciled whenever possible as parts of a answer for valid and legal claims of recruited
coordinated and harmonious whole. workers as a result of recruitment violations or
money claims. The Solicitor General sustained
Same; Same; In addition to monetary obligations
the appeal bond and commented that appeals
of the overseas recruiter appeal bond is required
from decisions of the POEA were governed by
to perfect an appeal from a decision of the
Section 5 and 6, Rule V, Book VII of the POEA
POEA.Accordingly, we hold that in addition to
Rules.
the monetary obligations of the overseas
recruiter prescribed in Section 4, Rule II, Book II ISSUE:
of the POEA Rules and the escrow agreement
Whether or not the petitioner is still required to
under Section 17 of the same Rule, it is necessary
post an appeal bond to perfect its appeal from a
to post the appeal bond required under Section
decision of the POEA to the NLRC?
6, Rule V, Book VII of the POEA Rules, as a
condition for perfecting an appeal from a
decision of the POEA.
HELD:
Same; Same; Every intendment of the law must
be interpreted in favor of the working class. YES. Petitioners contention has no merit.
Every intendment of the law must be interpreted Statutes should be read as a whole. Ut res magis
in favor of the working class, conformably to the valeat quam pereat that the thing may rather
mandate of the Constitution. By sustaining have effect than be destroyed.
rather than annulling the appeal bond as a It is a principle of legal hermeneutics that in
further protection to the claimant employee, interpreting a statute (or a set of rules as in this
this Court affirms once again its commitment to case), care should be taken that every part
the interests of labor. JMM Promotions & thereof be given effect, on the theory that it was
Management, Inc. vs. NLRC, 228 SCRA 129, G.R. enacted as an integrated measure and not as a
No. 109835 November 22, 1993 hodge-podge of conflicting provisions. Under the
FACTS: petitioners interpretation, the appeal bond
required by Section 6 of the POEA Rule should be
Petitioners appeal was dismissed by the disregarded because of the earlier bonds and
respondent National Labor Relations escrow money it has posted. The petitioner
Commission citing the second paragraph of would in effect nullify Section 6 as a superfluity
Article 223 of the Labor Code as amended and but there is no such redundancy. On the
Rule VI, Section 6 of the new Rules of Procedure contrary, Section 6 complements Section 4 and
of the NLRC, as amended. The petitioner Section 17. The rule is that a construction that
contends that the NLRC committed grave abuse would render a provision inoperative should be
of discretion in applying these rules to decisions avoided. Instead, apparently inconsistent
rendered by the POEA. It insists that the appeal provisions should be reconciled whenever
bond is not necessary in the case of licensed possible as parts of a coordinated and
recruiters for overseas employment because harmonious whole.
they are already required under Section 4, Rule
II, Book II of the POEA Rules not only to pay a
license fee of P30,000 but also to post a cash ALFREDO SAJONAS and CONCHITA SAJONAS,
bond of P100,000 and a surety bond of P50,000. petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS,
In addition, the petitioner claims it has placed in DOMINGO A. PILARES, SHERIFF ROBERTO
escrow the sum of P200,000 with the Philippine
16
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
GARCIA OF QUEZON CITY and REGISTER OF property registered under the system, or any
DEEDS OF MARIKINA, respondents. interest therein only take effect as a conveyance
to bind the land upon its registration, and that a
Land Titles; Adverse Claims; Annotation of an
purchaser is not required to explore further than
adverse claim is a measure designed to protect
what the Torrens title, upon its face, indicates in
the interest of a person over a piece of real
quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right
property where the registration of such interest
that may subsequently defeat his right thereto,
or right is not otherwise provided for by the Land
nonetheless, this rule is not absolute. Thus, one
Registration Act or Act 496 (now P.D. 1529) and
who buys from the registered owner need not
serves a warning to third parties dealing with
have to look behind the certificate of title, he is,
said property that someone is claiming an
nevertheless, bound by the liens and
interest on the same or a better right than that
encumbrances annotated thereon. One who
of the registered owner thereof.Concededly,
buys without checking the vendors title takes all
annotation of an adverse claim is a measure
the risks and losses consequent to such failure.
designed to protect the interest of a person over
a piece of real property where the registration of Statutory Construction; Taken in solitude, a word
such interest or right is not otherwise provided or phrase might easily convey a meaning quite
for by the Land Registration Act or Act 496 (now different from the one actually intended and
P.D. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree), evident when a word or phrase is considered
and serves a warning to third parties dealing with with those with which it is associated.In
said property that someone is claiming an construing the law aforesaid, care should be
interest on the same or a better right than that taken that every part thereof be given effect and
of the registered owner thereof. Such notice is a construction that could render a provision
registered by filing a sworn statement with the inoperative should be avoided, and inconsistent
Register of Deeds of the province where the provisions should be reconciled whenever
property is located, setting forth the basis of the possible as parts of a harmonious whole. For
claimed right together with other datas taken in solitude, a word or phrase might easily
pertinent thereto. The registration of an adverse convey a meaning quite different from the one
claim is expressly recognized under Section 70 of actually intended and evident when a word or
P.D. No. 1529. phrase is considered with those with which it is
associated. In ascertaining the period of
Same; Land Registration; Torrens System; Under
effectivity of an inscription of adverse claim, we
the Torrens system, registration is the operative
must read the law in its entirety.
act which gives validity to the transfer or creates
a lien upon the land.Under the Torrens Same; Each statute must be construed as to
system, registration is the operative act which harmonize it with the pre-existing body of
gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien laws.A statutes clauses and phrases must not
upon the land. A person dealing with registered be taken separately, but in its relation to the
land is not required to go behind the register to statutes totality. Each statute must, in fact, be
determine the condition of the property. He is construed as to harmonize it with the pre-
only charged with notice of the burdens on the existing body of laws. Unless clearly repugnant,
property which are noted on the face of the provisions of statutes must be reconciled. The
register or certificate of title. printed pages of the published Act, its history,
origin, and its purposes may be examined by the
Same; Same; Same; One who buys without
courts in their construction.
checking the vendors title takes all the risks and
losses consequent to such failure.While it is Same; P.D. 1529; Land Titles; Adverse Claims;
true that under the provisions of the Property P.D. 1529, taken together, simply means that the
Registration Decree, deeds of conveyance of cancellation of the adverse claim is still
17
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
necessary to render it ineffective, otherwise the annotated the notice of levy on execution
inscription will remain annotated and shall thereto. Consequently, he is charged with
continue as a lien upon the property. knowledge that the property sought to be levied
Construing the provision as a whole would upon on execution was encumbered by an
reconcile the apparent inconsistency between interest the same as or better than that of the
the portions of the law such that the provision registered owner thereof. Such notice of levy
on cancellation of adverse claim by verified cannot prevail over the existing adverse claim
petition would serve to qualify the provision on inscribed on the certificate of title in favor of the
the effectivity period. The law, taken together, petitioners.
simply means that the cancellation of the
Same; Same; Sales; Words and Phrases;
adverse claim is still necessary to render it
Purchaser in Good Faith, Defined.A
ineffective, otherwise, the inscription will
purchaser in good faith and for value is one who
remain annotated and shall continue as a lien
buys property of another without notice that
upon the property. For if the adverse claim has
some other person has a right to or interest in
already ceased to be effective upon the lapse of
such property and pays a full and fair price for
said period, its cancellation is no longer
the same, at the time of such purchase, or before
necessary and the process of cancellation would
he has notice of the claims or interest of some
be a useless ceremony.
other person in the property. Good faith consists
Same; Same; Same; Same; To interpret the in an honest intention to abstain from taking any
effectivity period of the adverse claim as unconscientious advantage of another.
absolute and without qualification limited to
Same; The Land Registration Act (Property
thirty days defeats the very purpose for which
Registration Decree) guarantees to every
the statute provides for the remedy of an
purchaser of registered land in good faith that
inscription of adverse claim.To interpret the
they can take and hold the same free from any
effectivity period of the adverse claim as
and all prior claims, liens and encumbrances
absolute and without qualification limited to
except those set forth on the Certificate of Title
thirty days defeats the very purpose for which
and those expressly mentioned in the ACT as
the statute provides for the remedy of an
having been preserved against it.At any rate,
inscription of adverse claim, as the annotation of
the Land Registration Act (Property Registration
an adverse claim is a measure designed to
Decree) guarantees to every purchaser of
protect the interest of a person over a piece of
registered land in good faith that they can take
real property where the registration of such
and hold the same free from any and all prior
interest or right is not otherwise provided for by
claims, liens and encumbrances except those set
the Land Registration Act or Act 496 (now P.D.
forth on the Certificate of Title and those
1529 or the Property Registration Decree), and
expressly mentioned in the ACT as having been
serves as a warning to third parties dealing with
preserved against it. Otherwise, the efficacy of
said property that someone is claiming an
the conclusiveness of the Certificate of Title
interest on the same or a better right than the
which the Torrens system seeks to insure would
registered owner thereof.
be futile and nugatory. Sajonas vs. Court of
Land Titles; Adverse Claims; Writs of Execution; Appeals, 258 SCRA 79, G.R. No. 102377 July 5,
A notice of levy cannot prevail over an existing 1996
adverse claim inscribed on the certificate of
title.In sum, the disputed inscription of
adverse claim on the Transfer Certificate of Title
No. N-79073 was still in effect on February 12,
1985 when Quezon City Sheriff Roberto Garcia
18
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
Facts: (PD 1529) that the adverse claim is only valid for
30 days cannot be upheld. Clearly, the intention
The case is for cancellation of the inscription of a
of the law is otherwise as may be gleaned on the
Notice of Levy on Execution from a certificate of
following discussion:
Title covering a parcel of real property. The
inscription was caused to be made by the private Sec. 70 Adverse Claim- Whoever claims any part
respondent on Transfer Certificate of Title No. N- or interest in registered land adverse to the
79073 of the Register of Deeds of Marikina, registered owner, arising subsequent to the date
issued in the name of the spouses Uychocde, and of the original registration, may, if no other
was later carried over to and annotated on provision is made in this decree for registering
Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-109417 of the the same, make a statement in writing setting
same registry, issued in the name of the spouses forth fully his alleged right or interest, and how
Sajonas, who purchased the parcel of land from or under whom acquired, a reference to the
the Uychocdes, and are now the petitioners in number of certificate of title of the registered
this case. owner, the name of the registered owner, and a
description of the land in which the right or
The subject property was bought by Sajonas
interest is claimed.
spouses on September 1983 and caused the
annotation of their adverse claim on August The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and
1984. The Deed of Sale was executed upon the shall state the adverse claimants residence, and
full payment of the purchase price and the same a place at which all notices may be served upon
was registered only on August 1985. him. This statement shall be entitled to
registration as an adverse claim on the
Meanwhile, without the petitioners' knowledge,
certificate of title. The adverse claim shall be
there has been a compromise agreement
effective for a period of thirty days from the date
between the spouses Uychocde and Pilares
of registration. After the lapse of said period, the
(Uychocde's judgment creditor), and a notice of
annotation of adverse claim may be cancelled
levy on execution was issued on February 12,
upon filing of a verified petition therefor by the
1985. On February 12, 1985, defendant sheriff
party in interest: Provided, however, that after
Roberto Garcia of Quezon City presented said
cancellation, no second adverse claim based on
notice of levy on execution before the Register
the same ground shall be registered by the same
of Deeds of Marikina and the same was
claimant.
annotated at the back of TCT No. 79073 as Entry
No. 123283. Before the lapse of thirty days aforesaid, any
party in interest may file a petition in the Court
Issue:
of First Instance where the land is situated for
Which should be preferred between the notice the cancellation of the adverse claim, and the
of levy on execution and the deed of absolute court shall grant a speedy hearing upon the
sale. The Deed of Absolute Sale was executed on question of the validity of such adverse claim,
September 4, 1984, but was registered only on and shall render judgment as may be just and
August 28, 1985, while the notice of levy on equitable. If the adverse claim is adjudged to be
execution was annotated six (6) months prior to invalid, the registration thereof shall be ordered
the registration of the sale on February 12, 1985. cancelled. If, in any case, the court, after notice
and hearing shall find that the adverse claim thus
Decision: registered was frivolous, it may fine the claimant
The annotation of the adverse claim is in an amount not less than one thousand pesos,
equivalent to notice to third persons of the nor more than five thousand pesos, in its
interest of the claimant. The provision of the law discretion. Before the lapse of thirty days, the
claimant may withdraw his adverse claim by
19
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
filing with the Register of Deeds a sworn petition accorded a prime niche in the hierarchy of rights
to that effect. embodied in the fundamental law, ought to be
exercised within the proper bounds and
Construing the provision as a whole would
framework of the Constitution and must
reconcile the apparent inconsistency between
properly yield to pertinent laws skillfully enacted
the portions of the law such that the provision
by the Legislature.In a representative
on cancellation of adverse claim by verified
democracy such as ours, the right of suffrage,
petition would serve to qualify the provision on
although accorded a prime niche in the hierarchy
the effectivity period. The law, taken together,
of rights embodied in the fundamental law,
simply means that the cancellation of the
ought to be exercised within the proper bounds
adverse claim is still necessary to render it
and framework of the Constitution and must
ineffective, otherwise, the inscription will
properly yield to pertinent laws skillfully enacted
remain annotated and shall continue as a lien
by the Legislature, which statutes for all intents
upon the property. For if the adverse claim has
and purposes, are crafted to effectively insulate
already ceased to be effective upon the lapse of
such so cherished right from ravishment and
said period, its cancellation is no longer
preserve the democratic institutions our people
necessary and the process of cancellation would
have, for so long, guarded against the spoils of
be a useless ceremony.
opportunism, debauchery and abuse. To be sure,
To interpret the effectivity period of the adverse the right of suffrage ardently invoked by herein
claim as absolute and without qualification petitioners, is not at all absolute. Needless to
limited to thirty days defeats the very purpose say, the exercise of the right of suffrage, as in the
for which the statute provides for the remedy of enjoyment of all other rights, is subject to
an inscription of adverse claim, as the annotation existing substantive and procedural
of an adverse claim is a measure designed to requirements embodied in our Constitution,
protect the interest of a person over a piece of statute books and other repositories of law.
real property where the registration of such
Same; Same; Voters Registration; The act of
interest or right is not otherwise provided for by
registration is an indispensable precondition to
the Land Registration Act or Act 496 (now P.D.
the right of suffrage; The State undoubtedly, in
1529 or the Property Registration Decree), and
the exercise of its inherent police power, may
serves as a warning to third parties dealing with
then enact laws to safeguard and regulate the
said property that someone is claiming an
act of voters registration for the ultimate
interest or the same or a better right than the
purpose of conducting honest, orderly and
registered owner thereof.
peaceful election, to the incidental yet generally
important end, that even pre-election activities
could be performed by the duly constituted
G.R No. 147066, March 26, 2001.* authorities in a realistic and orderly manner, one
AKBAYAN-Youth, SCAP, UCSC, MASP, KOMPIL which is not indifferent and so far removed from
II-Youth, ALYANSA, KALIPI, PATRICIA O. PICAR, the pressing order of the day and the prevalent
MYLA GAIL Z. TAMONDONG, EMMANUEL E. circumstances of the times.As to the
OMBAO, JOHNNY ACOSTA, ARCHIE JOHN procedural limitation, the right of a citizen to
TALAUE, RYAN DAPITAN, CHRISTOPHER vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain
OARDE, JOSE MARI MODESTO, RICHARD M. procedural requirements he must undergo:
VALENCIA, EDBEN TABUCOL, petitioners, vs. among others, the process of registration.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondents. Specifically, a citizen in order to be qualified to
exercise his right to vote, in addition to the
Election Law; Suffrage; In a representative minimum requirements set by the fundamental
democracy, the right of suffrage, although charter, is obliged by law to register, at present,
20
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
under the provisions of Republic Act No. 8189, voters registration if the original period is not
otherwise known as the Voters Registration observed.
Act of 1996. Stated differently, the act of
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC exercised
registration is an indispensable precondition to
grave abuse of discretion when it denied the
the right of suffrage. For registration is part and
extension of the voters registration.
parcel of the right to vote and an indispensable
element in the election process. Thus, contrary HELD: No. The COMELEC was well within its right
to petitioners argument, registration cannot to do so pursuant to the clear provisions of
and should not be denigrated to the lowly Section 8, RA 8189 which provides that no voters
stature of a mere statutory requirement. registration shall be conducted within 120 days
Proceeding from the significance of registration before the regular election. The right of suffrage
as a necessary requisite to the right to vote, the is not absolute. It is regulated by measures like
State undoubtedly, in the exercise of its inherent voters registration which is not a mere statutory
police power, may then enact laws to safeguard requirement. The State, in the exercise of its
and regulate the act of voters registration for inherent police power, may then enact laws to
the ultimate purpose of conducting honest, safeguard and regulate the act of voters
orderly and peaceful election, to the incidental registration for the ultimate purpose of
yet generally important end, that even pre- conducting honest, orderly and peaceful
election activities could be performed by the election, to the incidental yet generally
duly constituted authorities in a realistic and important end, that even pre-election activities
orderly mannerone which is not indifferent could be performed by the duly constituted
and so far removed from the pressing order of authorities in a realistic and orderly manner
the day and the prevalent circumstances of the one which is not indifferent and so far removed
times. Akbayan-Youth vs. Commission on from the pressing order of the day and the
Elections, 355 SCRA 318, G.R No. 147066, G.R prevalent circumstances of the times. RA 8189
No. 147179 March 26, 2001 prevails over RA 8436 in that RA 8189s provision
is explicit as to the prohibition. Suffice it to say
FACTS: On January 25, 2001, AKBAYAN-Youth,
that it is a pre-election act that cannot be reset.
together with other youth movements sought
the extension of the registration of voters for the Further, even if what is asked is a mere two-day
May 2001 elections. The voters registration has special registration, COMELEC has shown in its
already ended on December 27, 2000. pleadings that if it is allowed, it will substantially
AKBAYAN-Youth asks that persons aged 18-21 be create a setback in the other pre-election
allowed a special 2-day registration. The matters because the additional voters from the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) denied the special two day registration will have to be
petition. AKBAYAN-Youth the sued COMELEC for screened, entered into the book of voters, have
alleged grave abuse of discretion for denying the to be inspected again, verified, sealed, then
petition. AKBAYAN-Youth alleged that there are entered into the computerized voters list; and
about 4 million youth who were not able to then they will have to reprint the voters
register and are now disenfranchised. COMELEC information sheet for the update and distribute
invoked Section 8 of Republic Act 8189 which it by that time, the May 14, 2001 elections
provides that no registration shall be conducted would have been overshot because of the
120 days before the regular election. AKBAYAN- lengthy processes after the special registration.
Youth however counters that under Section 28 In short, it will cost more inconvenience than
of Republic Act 8436, the COMELEC in the good. Further still, the allegation that youth
exercise of its residual and stand-by powers, can voters are disenfranchised is not sufficient.
reset the periods of pre-election acts including Nowhere in AKBAYAN-Youths pleading was
attached any actual complaint from an individual
21
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
youth voter about any inconvenience arising of the matter. It was not merely an interlocutory
from the fact that the voters registration has order but a final disposition of the complaint.
ended on December 27, 2001. Also, AKBAYAN-
Same; Same; Same; Same; After the lapse of the
Youth et al admitted in their pleading that they
fifteen-day period, an order becomes final and
are asking an extension because they failed to
executory and is beyond the power or
register on time for some reasons, which is not
jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to
appealing to the court. The law aids the vigilant
further amend or revoke.The law grants an
and not those who slumber on their rights.
aggrieved party a period of fifteen (15) days
from his receipt of the courts decision or order
disposing of the action or proceeding to appeal
FIDEL M. BAARES II, LILIA C. VALERIANO,
or move to reconsider the same. After the lapse
EDGAR M. BAARES, EMILIA GATCHALIAN and
of the fifteen-day period, an order becomes final
FIDEL BESARINO, petitioners, vs. ELIZABETH
and executory and is beyond the power or
BALISING, ROGER ALGER, MERLINDA CAPARIC,
jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to
EUSTAQUIO R. TEJONES, ANDREA SAYAM,
further amend or revoke. A final judgment or
JENNY ISLA, WILMA ROGATERO, PABLITO
order cannot be modified in any respect, even if
ALEGRIA, ROLANDO CANON, EDITHA ESTORES,
the modification sought is for the purpose of
EDMUNDO DOROYA, TERESITA GUION, DANNY
correcting an erroneous conclusion by the court
ANDARAYAN, LOURDES CADAY, ROGELIO
which rendered the same. After the order of
MANO, EVANGELINE CABILTES AND PUBLIC
dismissal of a case without prejudice has become
PROSECUTOR OF RIZAL, Antipolo, Rizal,
finals and therefore becomes outside the courts
respondents.
power to amend and modify, a party who wishes
Remedial Law; Actions; Dismissals; Definition of to reinstate the case has no other remedy but to
Final Order and Interlocutory Order.A file a new complaint.
final order issued by a court has been defined
Same; Same; Same; Same; The foregoing rule
as one which disposes of the subject matter in its
applies not only to civil cases but to criminal
entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or
cases as well.Contrary to private respondents
action, leaving nothing else to be done but to
claim, the foregoing rule applies not only to civil
enforce by execution what has been determined
cases but to criminal cases as well. In Jaca vs.
by the court. As distinguished therefrom, an
Blanco, the Court defined a provisional dismissal
interlocutory order is one which does not
of a criminal case as a dismissal without
dispose of a case completely, but leaves
prejudice to the reinstatement thereof before
something more to be adjudicated upon.
the order of dismissal becomes final or to the
Same; Same; Same; Same; An order dismissing a subsequent filing of a new information for the
case without prejudice is a final order if no offense.
motion for reconsideration or appeal therefrom
Same; Same; Same; Same; The rules regarding
is timely filed.This Court has previously held
finality of judgments also apply to cases covered
that an order dismissing a case without prejudice
by the rules on summary procedure.A careful
is a final order if no motion for reconsideration
examination of Section 18 in relation to Section
or appeal therefrom is timely filed. In Olympia
22 of the 1991 Revised Rule of Summary
International vs. Court of Appeals, we stated,
Procedure and Rule 40, Section 2 in relation to
thus: The dismissal without prejudice of a
Rule 13, Sections 9 and 10, and Rule 36, Section
complaint does not however mean that said
2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
dismissal order was any less final. Such Order of
amended, leads to no other conclusion than that
dismissal is complete in all details, and though
the rules regarding finality of judgments also
without prejudice, nonetheless finally disposed
apply to cases covered by the rules on summary
22
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
procedure. Nothing in Section 18 of the 1991 The trial court dismissed the criminal case
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure conflicts without prejudice. After more than 2 months,
with the prevailing rule that a judgment or order private complainants sought the revival of the
which is not appealed or made subject of a criminal case. When the trial court allowed
motion for reconsideration within the prescribed revival of the case, the accused questioned the
fifteen-day period attains finality. order, claiming that the prior dismissal had
already become final and executory.
Same; Presidential Decree No. 1508; It is well-
settled that the non-referral of a case for Issue: Whether the said order became final and
barangay conciliation when so required under executory
the law is not jurisdictional in nature and may
Held: Yes. An order dismissing a case without
therefore be deemed waived if not raised
prejudice is a final order if no motion for
seasonably in a motion to dismiss.The Court
reconsideration or appeal therefrom is timely
also finds it necessary to correct the mistaken
filed. The law grants an aggrieved party a period
impression of petitioners and the municipal trial
of 15 days from his receipt of the decision or
court that the non-referral of a case for barangay
order to appeal or move to reconsider the same.
conciliation as required under the Local
After the order of dismissal of a case without
Government Code of 1991 may be raised in a
prejudice has become final, and therefore
motion to dismiss even after the accused has
becomes outside the courts power to amend
been arraigned. It is well-settled that the non-
and modify, a party who wishes to reinstate the
referral of a case for barangay conciliation when
case has no other remedy but to file a new
so required under the law is not jurisdictional in
complaint.
nature and may therefore be deemed waived if
not raised seasonably in a motion to dismiss. The
Court notes that although petitioners could have
invoked the ground of prematurity of the causes PURIFICACION M. VDA. DE URBANO, PEDRO DE
of action against them due to the failure to CASTRO, AURELIO I. ARRIENDA, ARNEL U.
submit the dispute to Lupon prior to the filing of ARRIENDA, ALBERT U. ARRIENDA, ALICE A.
the cases as soon as they received the PEDRON and MARILYN C. BILOG, petitioners, vs.
complaints against them, petitioners raised the GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM
said ground only after their arraignment. (GSIS), FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR., ZACARIAS
However, while the trial court committed an BELTRAN, JR., MARCIAL SECOQUIAN and
error in dismissing the criminal cases against CRISPINA DELA CRUZ, respondents.
petitioners on the ground that the same were Government Service Insurance System; There is
not referred to the Lupon prior to the filing no restriction or qualification that the GSIS
thereof in court although said ground was raised should dispose of its real properties in favor only
by them belatedly, the said order may no longer of GSIS members.The above laws grant the
be revoked at present considering that the same GSIS Board of Trustees (the Board) the power,
had already become final and executory, and as nay, the responsibility, to exercise discretion in
earlier stated, may no longer be annulled by the determining the terms and conditions of
Municipal Trial Court, nor by the Regional Trial financial accommodations to its members with
Court or this Court. Baares II vs. Balising, 328 the dual purpose of making the GSIS more
SCRA 36, G.R. No. 132624 March 13, 2000 responsive to the needs of the members of the
Facts: Fidel M. Banares II, Lilia C. Valeriano, GSIS and assuring the actuarial solvency of the
Edgar M. Banares, Emilia Gatchialian and Fidel Fund administered by the GSIS. As mandated by
Besarino were the accused in sixteen criminal P.D. 1146, this discretion may be exercised in
cases for estafa. They filed a motion to dismiss. acquiring, utilizing or disposing of, in any manner
23
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
recognized by law, real or personal properties the GSIS. As a financial institution extending
in the Philippines or elsewhere necessary to housing loans, the disposition of foreclosed
carry out the purposes of this Act. Contrary to propertiessuch as the subject propertyat a
petitioners position, there is no restriction or price beneficial to the GSIS helps maintain the
qualification that the GSIS should dispose of its actuarial solvency of the GSIS fund. It cannot,
real properties in favor only of GSIS members. therefore, be said that the subject property is
Based on these laws, the Board could exercise its no longer needed by the GSIS. Vda. de Urbano
discretion on whether to accept or reject vs. Government Service Insurance System, 367
petitioners offer to repurchase the subject SCRA 672, G.R. No. 137904 October 19, 2001
property taking into account the dual purpose
Topic: Statutes in Pari MateriaStatutes in pari
enunciated in the whereas clause of P.D. 1981,
materia should be read and construed together
i.e., making the GSIS more responsive to the
because enactments of the same legislature on
needs of the members of the GSIS and assuring
the same subject are supposed to form part of
the actuarial solvency of the Fund administered
one uniform system.
by the GSIS.
FACTS: Petitioners mortgaged their property to
Same; Redemption; Repurchase; Words and
respondent GSIS to secure a housing loan. As
Phrases; Redemption and Repurchase,
petitioners failed to pay their load when it fell
Distinguished; The right to redeem becomes
due, GSIS foreclosed the mortgage. Petitioner
functus oficio on the date of its expiry, and its
Vda. De Urbano wrote The GSIS Board of
exercise after the period is not really one of
trustees to inform them of her desire to
redemption but a repurchase.Jurisprudence
redeem the subject property and for advice on
also supports the Boards exercise of discretion
the procedure for redemption. GSIS responded
in case of repurchase, viz.: The right to redeem
advising her to pay The Total redemption price
becomes functus oficio on the date of its expiry,
of P154, 896.00 on or before the expiry date of
and its exercise after the period is not really one
redemption. Unable to Find Financing to
of redemption but a repurchase. Distinction
repurchase the subject property, petitioners
must be made because redemption is by force of
requested for re-mortgage through repurchase
law; the purchaser at public auction is bound to
of the subject property. Respondent Crsipina
accept redemption. Repurchase, however, of
DelaCruz commenced negotiations with
foreclosed property, after redemption period,
respondent GSIS for her purchase of The
imposes no such obligation. After expiry, the
petitioners' foreclosed property. A Deed of
purchaser may or may not re-sell the property
Absolute Sale over The subject property was
but no law will compel him to do so. And, he is
executed between GSIS and private respondent
not bound by the bid price; it is entirely within
Dela Cruz. Having learned about The sale of The
his discretion to set a higher price, for after all,
subject property To DelaCruz, petitioner Aurelio
the property already belongs to him as owner.
Arrienda wrote To The GSIS protesting The said
Same; Same; As a financial institution extending sale and requesting its reconsideration and
housing loans, the disposition of foreclosed recall. Petitioners fled the instant case before
properties at a price beneficial to the GSIS helps The RTC of Quezon City. The lower court
maintain the actuarial solvency of the GSIS dismissed the complaint. This was armed by The
fund.That the subject property is not Court of Appeals.
unserviceable or useless is rather obvious.
ISSUES: WoN The petitioners have a right To
Petitioners are precisely fighting tooth and nail
repurchase The subject property.
to claim the subject property as they are still
using it as their family home. It still serves its Ratio:
purpose well. Neither is it no longer needed by
24
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
No Operation Pabahay. The sale to respondent cant
be annulled on such invoked right.
Charter of the GSIS was PD 1146 which
stipulated the power of the GSIS to acquire,
utilize, and dispose of real or personal properties
GOV. ANTONIO CALINGIN, petitioner, vs.
in the Philippines or elsewhere. It was amended
COURT OF APPEALS, Special 17th Division,
by PD 1981 which gave the GSIS the power to
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RENATO S. DE VILLA,
compromise or release any claim or settled
DEPT. OF INTERIOR & LOCAL GOVERNMENT
liability to the system.
SECRETARY JOEY LINA,** UNDERSECRETARY
SC- The laws granted the GSIS Board the power EDUARDO R. SOLIMAN, JR., DEPARTMENT OF
to exercise discretion in determining the terms THE INTERIOR & LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
and condition of financial accommodations to its REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 10, DIRECTOR RODOLFO
members with the dual purpose of making the Z. RAZUL, respondents.
GSIS more responsive to the needs of GSIS
Statutory Construction; Statutes; Special Laws;
members. The laws also stipulated that the
Where there are two statutes that apply to a
Board could exercise discretion on whether to
particular case, that which was specially
accept or reject petitioners offer to repurchase
intended for the said case must prevail.In
the subject property taking into account the dual
Lapid v. Court of Appeals, we held that it is a
purpose enunciated in the whereas clause of PD
principle of statutory construction that where
1981 which made the GSIS more responsive to
there are two statutes that apply to a particular
the needs of its members.
case, that which was specially intended for the
With regard to the Boards exercise of discretion, said case must prevail. The case on hand involves
in Natino v IAC, the Court also held that a disciplinary action against an elective local
repurchase of foreclosed property after official. Thus, the Local Government Code is the
redemption period imposes no such obligation applicable law and must prevail over the
on the purchaser (the board in this case) to re- Administrative Code which is of general
sell the property since the property belongs to application. Further, the Local Government Code
him (the board as well) of 1991 was enacted much later than the
Administrative Code of 1987. In statutory
The boards denial of petitioners request to
construction, all laws or parts thereof which are
purchase the subject property was not based on
inconsistent with the later law are repealed or
whim but on a factual assessment of the financial
modified accordingly.
capacity of the petitioners to make good their
repeated offers to purchase the subject Constitutional Law; Local Government; Local
property. Based on the circumstances, the Government Code; Execution; The decisions of
petitioners were repeatedly unable to fulfill their the Office of the President under the Local
obligations to pay. In the comments of the AAD Government Code are immediately executory
manager, the observation was that the even pending appeal.Under the same case of
petitioners lacked the capacity to pay up. Lapid v. Court of Appeals, we enunciated that the
decisions of the Office of the President under the
The petitioners are not entitled to a request for
Local Government Code are immediately
repurchase as a matter of right. The Board
executory even pending appeal because the
exercised its discretion in accordance with law in
pertinent laws under which the decisions were
denying their requests and the GSIS cant be
rendered mandated them to be so. In sum, the
faulted for their failure to repurchase as it acted
decisions of the Office of the President are final
under the petitioners application under
and executory. No motion for reconsideration is
allowed by law but the parties may appeal the
25
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER (ESCRA)
decision to the Court of Appeals. The appeal, later than the Administrative Code of 1987. In
however, does not stay the execution of the statutory construction, all laws or parts thereof
decision. Thus, the DILG Secretary may validly which are inconsistent with the later law are
move for its immediate execution. Calingin vs. repealed or modified accordingly.
Court of Appeals, 434 SCRA 173, G.R. No. 154616
Since no motion for recon is allowed by law but
July 12, 2004
parties may appeal to the CA and that the LGC
says that the decisions of the Office of the
President are executory even pending appeal,
Facts: The Office of the President issued a
then the decision is final and executory
resolution, dated March 22 2001 (during the
election period) suspending Gov. Calingin for 90 Petition denied
days. 12 days after, he filed before the Office a
motion for recon.
Issues/Held:
Ratio: