Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Amending and Modifying Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 7742

    Uploaded by

    Carl Alonzo
    56 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the 1995 amendments made by HDMF to the rules implementing RA 7742 were null and void. Specifically, the amendments requiring employers seeking exemption from Pag-IBIG coverage to have both a superior retirement plan and housing plan, rather than either/or, were inconsistent with Section 19 of PD 1752. The PD intended exemption if the employer had a superior plan for provident/retirement or housing. HDMF exceeded its rule-making authority by contradicting the standards in the enabling law. The Court affirmed that "and/or" is to be read as meaning "and" or "or", so the employer needed only one superior plan, not both, for the exemption.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    RMBSA v HDMF.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that the 1995 amendments made by HDMF to the rules implementing RA 7742 were null and void. Specifically, the amendments requiring employers seeking exemption from Pag-IBIG coverage to have both a superior retirement plan and housing plan, rather than either/or, were inconsistent with Section 19 of PD 1752. The PD intended exemption if the employer had a superior plan for provident/retirement or housing. HDMF exceeded its rule-making authority by contradicting the standards in the enabling law. The Court affirmed that "and/or" is to be read as meaning "and" or "or", so the employer needed only one superior plan, not both, for the exemption.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    56 views2 pages

    Amending and Modifying Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 7742

    Uploaded by

    Carl Alonzo
    The Supreme Court ruled that the 1995 amendments made by HDMF to the rules implementing RA 7742 were null and void. Specifically, the amendments requiring employers seeking exemption from Pag-IBIG coverage to have both a superior retirement plan and housing plan, rather than either/or, were inconsistent with Section 19 of PD 1752. The PD intended exemption if the employer had a superior plan for provident/retirement or housing. HDMF exceeded its rule-making authority by contradicting the standards in the enabling law. The Court affirmed that "and/or" is to be read as meaning "and" or "or", so the employer needed only one superior plan, not both, for the exemption.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    RMBSA v.

    HDMF
    G.R. No. 131082, June 19 2000

    DOCTRINE
     Statutory construction: It is ordinarily held that the intention of the legislature in using the term “and/or” is that the word “and” and
    the word “or” are to be used interchangeably (e.g. butter and/or eggs means butter and eggs or butter or eggs)
    o The term “and/or” means that the effect shall be given to both theconjunctive “and” and the disjunctive “or”; or that one word
    or the other may be taken accordingly as one or the other will best effectuate the purpose intended by the legislature as
    gathered by from the whole statute.

    PARTIES
     Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc and De Los Angeles (RMBSA) – petitioner
     Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) – respondent
    FACTS
     Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA
     Petitioner was exempted from the Pag-IBIG Fund coverage for the period 1 January to 31 December 1995
    o Sept 1 1995 – HDMF Board of Trustees pursuant to Sec 5 of RA 7742 issued Board Resolution No. 1011, Series of 1995,
    amending and modifying Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 7742:
     Sec 1 of Rule VII – for a company to be entitled to a waiver or suspension of Fund coverage, it must have a plan
    providing for both provident/retirement and housing benefits superior to those provided under the Pag-IBIG fund.
    o Nov 16 1995 – Petitioner filed with the respondent an application for Waiver or Suspension of Fund Coverage because of its
    superior retirement plan; petitioner sent a letter supporting their application explaining that the 1995 Amendments to the
    Rules are invlalid
    o March 18 1996 – Respondent disapproved petitioner’s application; Rules implementing RA 7742 did not amend or repeal Sec
    19 of PD 1752 but merely implement the law
    o March 31 1997 – Petitioner filed a petition for review before the CA and was dismissed on the ground that
    (1) coverage of employers and employees under HDMF are mandatory
    (2) petitioner is not a distressed employer to warrant its exemption from Fund coverage
    (3) amendments to the rules and regulations implementing RA 7742 are valid
    (4) respondent is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations (rule-making power)
    (5) published in Philippine Star

    CONTENTIONS
     Petitioner
    o 1995 Amendments issued by HDMF are inconsistent with the enabling law PD 1752 (merely requires as a pre-condition for
    exemption from coverage the existence of either a superior provident/retirement plan or a superior housing plan, not
    both); 1996 Amendment is also void as they abolish the exemption granted by sec 19 of PD 1752
    o Repeal of such exemption ivolves the exercise of legislative power
    o No public hearing making the amendments void [Sec 9 (1), Ch 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987]
    o Did not file with the UP Law Center 3 Certified copies of every rule adopted (Sec 3, Ch 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code
    of 1987)
     Respondent
    o Exercising its rule-making power under Sec 13 of PD 1752 (Clarified confusion of “and/or” by choosing only “and” in Sec 19 of
    PD 1752)
    o Public hearing is only operational or discretionary on the part of the agency concerned except when the same is required by
    law (PD 1752 does not require); it requires PUBLICATION at least in once in a newspaper of general circulation

    ISSUE
     W/N 1995 Amendments to the Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 7742, specifically Sec 1, Rule VII on Waiver or Suspension
    are valid >> NO, null and void as recently resolved in China Banking Corp. v. The Members of the Board of Trustees of the HDMF

    HELD/RATIO
     Legal Signification of the words “and/or”
    o Used interchangeably
    o Shall be taken in its ordinary signifcation (e.g. butter and/or eggs means butter and eggs or butter or eggs)
    o Effect shall be given to both the conjunctive “and” and the disjunctive “or”
    o The term is used to avoid a construction which by the use of the disjunctive “or” alone will exclude the combination of several
    of the alternatives or by the use of the conjunctive “and” willexclude the efficiacy of any one of the alternatives standing alone
     “It…seems to us clear from the language of the enabling law that Sec 19 of PD 1752 intended that an employer with a provident plan
    or an employee housing plan superior to that of the fund may obtain exemption from coverage.
     Rule-making power of HDMF should be within the scope of the statutory authority granted by the legislature to the administrative
    agency
    o Required that the regulation be germane to the objects and purposes of the law, and be not in contradiction to, but in
    conformity with, the standards prescribed by law.

    You might also like