You are on page 1of 1

PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION v.

COMMISSION ON AUDIT
G.R. No. 183517, June 22, 2010

Issue: Whether Executive Order No. 756 is an additional alternative to existing


general retirement laws and/or an exception to the prohibition against separate or
supplementary insurance retirement or pension plans?

Perez, J.:
Doctrine:
Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 cannot be construed as an additional
alternative to existing general retirement laws and/or an exception to the
prohibition against separate or supplementary insurance retirement or pension
plans as aforesaid.

Held: No.

Facts: With the issuance of PD 1071, otherwise known as the Revised Charter of
the Philippine International Trading Corporation, then President Marcos issued
EO 756, authorizing the reorganization of PITC. On February 18, 1983,
President Marcos issued Executive Order No. 87.Romero, an officer of
petitioner, filed a July 16, 2001 request, seeking from petitioner payment of
retirement differentials on the strength of Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756.
COA Comm. Habitan issued the assailed ruling, stating that Reserve for
Retirement Gratuity and Commutation of Leave Credits of petitioners
employees did not include allowances outside of the basic salary, said officer
ruled that Executive Order No. 756 was a special law issued only for the specific
purpose of reorganizing petitioner corporation. Finding that Section 6 of
Executive Order No.756 was simply an incentive to encourage employees to
resign or retire at the height of petitioners reorganization, said decision went on
to make the following pronouncements, to wit: "Moreover, RA No. 4968
prohibits the creation of any insurance retirement plan by any government
agency and government-owned or controlled corporation other than the GSIS.

Ratio: STATCON RULE: every part of the statute must be interpreted with
reference to the context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be considered
together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the
whole enactment. The clauses and phrases must not be taken as detached and
isolated expressions. All the words in the statute must be taken into
consideration in order to ascertain its meaning.
The intent of EO 756 was to reorganize the petitioners corporate set up in
accordance with its expanded role in the development of Philippine trade. It was
clearly meant as an incentive for employees who retire, resign or are separated
from service during or as a consequence of the reorganization.
Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 cannot be construed as an additional
alternative to existing general retirement laws and/or an exception to the
prohibition against separate or supplementary insurance retirement or pension
plans as aforesaid. Aside from the fact that a meaning that does not appear nor is
intended or reflected in the very language of the statute cannot be placed therein
by construction, petitioner would likewise do well to remember that repeal of
laws should be made clear and express. Repeals by implication are not favored
as laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation and full knowledge of all
laws existing on the subject, the congruent application of which the courts must
generally presume.