24- TEOXON vs.

PHILIPPINE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION BOARD

DOCTRINE:
Administrative agencies in the exercise of its rule making powers, cannot extend nor amend an act of
Congress.

Regulations adopted by a department/agency must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and
for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions. In case of inconsistencies, the
mandate of the law must prevail over the Administrative rules.

FACTS:
Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with CFI alleging that he filed his claim for disability pension
under Veterans Bill of Rights for having been permanently incapacitated from work. At first he was
awarded P 25 monthly then it increased to P 50 contrary to the terms of basic law as thereafter
amended. He now claims the back pay of P 50 monthly from 1955 to 1957 and further claims P 100
per month with additional P 10 for each of his unmarried minor children from 1963.

Respondents answered with affirmative defenses saying that although the facts alleged by the
petitioner were true, mandamus will still not lie since the petitioner failed to exhaust its
administrative remedies before filing the said action. Moreover, the respondents contended that
since it is a suit against the government, it cannot prosper without the latters consent.

Lower court ruled against the petitioner saying that the respondent Board has authority under the
Pension Law to process applications for pension, relying on the administrative rules issued by them
presumably in pursuance of their duty to enforce the Veterans Bill of Rights. Petitioner filed an
appeal contending that his right as conferred by law takes precedence to what the administrative
rules and regulations of respondents provide.
ISSUE:
W/N rules and regulations promulgated by administrative agencies can prevail over a statue.
HELD:
NO, where an administrative order is inconsistent or repugnant to the provisions of the law, the latter
must prevail over the former. Regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular
department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law and for the sole purpose of carrying
into effect its general provisions.

As held in the case of Begosa vs. Chairman PVA (promulgated a month before this case), a veteran
suffering from permanent disability is not to be denied what has been granted by legislative
enactment, which is superior to any regulation that may be promulgated by the PVA.