You are on page 1of 7

Presumption against Unconstitutionality

ARIS (Phil.) Inc., v. National Labor Relations Commission, et. al
ARIS (Phil.) Inc., v. National Labor Relations Commission, et. Al
GR 90501 August 5, 1991
DOCTRINE: Laws are presumed constitutional. To justify nullification of a law, there must be a
clear and unequivocal breach of the constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative implication; a
law shall not be declared invalid unless the conflict with the constitution is clear beyond
reasonable doubt.
FACTS:


April 11, 1988 - the employees of ARIS (Phil.) Inc. (private respondents)
requested for a grievance conference for the failure of the management to
attend to their complaints concerning their working surroundings.
Unfortunately, the grievance conference was not arranged, thus, the
employees resorted to conduct a rally and to protest the management’s long
silence and inaction to their complaints
April 12, 1988 – the management issued a memorandum to those employees
who actively participated in the rally and required them to explain why they
should not be terminated from the service of their conduct. Despite their
explanation, the employees were still dismissed for violation of company
rules and regulations.
The dismissed employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against ARIS
and Mr. Gavino Bayan with NLCR-NCR.
June 22, 1989 – Labor Arbiter Felipe Garduque III handed down a decision
ordering ARIS to reinstate within 10 days from receipt of the decision the
dismissed employees to their former respective positions or any substantial
equivalent positions if already filled up, w/o loss of seniority right and
privileges but with limited backwages of six months except complainant
Leodegario de Guzman.
July 19, 1989 – the dismissed employees filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ
of Execution pursuant to Sec. 12 of RA 6715. For the succeeding days, the
petitioner and private respondents filed an appeal and counter-appeal.
August 29, 1989 – ARIS filed an Opposition to the motion for execution

CONTENTIONS:
Petitioner: Sec.12 of RA 6715 on execution pending appeal cannot be applied
retroactively on cases pending at the time of its effectivity because it does not
expressly provide that it shall be given retroactive effect and to give retroactive
effect to Sec. 12 thereof to pending cases would not only result in the imposition of

Alfredo S. RULING: Sec. ISSUE: Whether or not Sec. of a decision reinstating a dismissed or separated employee since that saving act is designed to stop. Hon. Hon. * PETITION DISMISSED. pending appeal. Pacquing and Associated Development Corporation Teofilo Guingona Jr. 12 of RA 6715 is not unconstitutional. Felipe G. basically in the exercise of its permanent police power on the theory that the preservation of the lives of the citizens is the basic duty of the State. Hon. Respondents (NLRC thru OSG): The provision concerning the mandatory and automatic reinstatement of an employee whose dismissal is found unjustified by the labor arbiter is a valid exercise of the police power of the state and the contested provision is then a police legislation. a continuing threat of danger to the survival or even the life of the dismissed or separated employee and his family.additional obligation on petitioner but would also dilute its right to appeal since it would be burdened with the consequences of reinstatement w/o the benefit of a final judgment. Such a law is compatible with the constitutional provision on protection to labor. it can apply to cases pending at the time of its effectivity on the theory that no one can claim a vested right in a rule of procedure. Respondents (NLRC thru OSG): Sec. that is more vital than the preservation of corporate profits. As contended by the SG. The validity of the questioned law is not only supported and sustained by the foregoing consideration. vs. 12 of RA 6715 is unconstitutional. it is a valid exercise of the police power of the State. and Dominador Cepeda Jr. Vetino Reyes and Associated Development Corporation . the State may authorize and immediate implementation. 12 of RA 6715 is violative of constitutional guaranty of due process – it being oppressive and unreasonable. 12 of RA 6715 being merely procedural in nature. if the right of an employer to freely discharge his employees is subject to regulation by the State. by and pursuant to the same power. Lim vs. Then. although temporarily since the appeal may be decided in favor of the appellant. Petitioner: Sec. Certainly.

The RTC Quezon City.  In response. FACTS:  Antonio Mecano is a Director II of NBI who was hospitalized for cholecystitis in less than two weeks from which he incurred medical and hospitalization expenses. 73 of then Sec. Central Bank of the Philippines Carlos Alonzo and Casimira Alonzo vs. 1990 – in a 4th Endorsement. 1990 – Director Lim forwarded Mecano’s claim (thru 1 st Endorsement) to the Secretary of Justice together with the comment and recommendation of Chief. al. Xxx  June 22. the total amount of which he is claiming from COA. Executive Secretary Teofisto Guingona Jr. Finding Mecano’s illness to be service-connected. the then Usec Bello of Justice Department returned Mecano’s claim to Director Lim having considered the statements of COA Chairman that the RAC being relied upon by Mecano was repealed by the Administrative Code of 1987. the City Prosecution of Quezon City and Wilsom Cham Presumption against Injustice Karen E. Salvacion vs. of Justice Franklin Drilon stating that the issuance . 1990 – thru a memo to Director Lim of NBI. the Committee on Physical Examination of the Department of Justice favorably recommended the payment of Mecano’s claim. Antonio A. 699 of RAC: xxx In case of sickness caused by or connected directly with the performance of some act in the line of duty. The People of the Philippines. et. Hon. Mecano requested for reimbursement for his expenses on the ground that he is entitled to the benefits under Sec. petitioners vs. vs.Jovencio Lim and Teresita Lim. Commission on Audit GR 103982 December 11. 1992 DOCTRINE: Repeal of statute by implication is not favored. Mecano vs. Berces.  May 11. In order to effect a repeal by implication. IAC and Tecla Padua Presumption against implied repeals Achilles C. Jr.  November 21. Branch 217. the later statute must be so irreconcilably inconsistent and repugnant with the existing law that they cannot be made to reconcile and stand together. Mecano re-submitted his claim to Director Lim with the copy of Opinion No. Commission on Audit Mecano v. LED of the NBI. the Department head may in his discretion authorize the payment of the necessary hospital fees.

he would still not be barred from filing a claim under Sec. Respondent: (1) The enactment of the Administrative Code of 1987 operated to revoke or supplant in its entirety the RAC of 1917. January 16. The Repealing Clause indicated in Sec. 73 of Sec. RULING: The enactment of the Administrative Code of 1987 did not operate to repeal the Revised Administrative Code of 1917. as suggested by COA. The failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal any . In the event that his claim is filed in ECC. solely for the reason that the same section was not re-stated nor re-enacted in the Administrative Code of 1987. CONTENTIONS: Petitioner: Sec. From the “whereas clauses” of the new Administrative Code. (2) Employment-related sickness. 27 of the Administrative Code of 1987 is not an express repealing clause because it fails to identify or designate the act or acts that are intended to be repealed. May 10. Drilon forwarded Mecano’s claim to the COA Chairman. 699 of RAC. 1991 – Sec. it can be gleaned that it was the intent of the legislature to repeal the old Code. July 2. 699 of RAC was not repealed by the Administrative Code of 1987 based on Opinion No. He commented that the claim may be filed with ECC considering that the illness of Mecano occurred after the effectivity of the Administrative Code of 1987. 699 of RAC. injury or death is adequately covered by ECC’s Program under PD 626 such that to allow simultaneous recovery of benefits under both laws on account of the same contingency would be unfair and unjust to the Government. 1992 – Usec Montenegro returned Mecano’s claim to Director Lim with the advice that Mecano may elevate the matter to Supreme Court if he so desires. 1991 – Director Lim transmitted anew Mecano’s claim to then Usec Bello for favorable consideration. ISSUE: Whether or not the enactment of the Administrative Code of 1987 operates to repeal the Revised Administrative Code of 1917. 1992 – COA Chair Domingo denied Mecano’s claim on the ground that Sec. 699 of RAC has been repealed by the Administrative Code of 1987.    of the Administrative Code of 1987 aid not operate to repeal or abrogate in its entirety the RAC. February 7. the particular Sec. Drilon. It is a clause which predicates the intended repeal under the condition that a substantial conflict must be found in existing and prior acts.

Inc.existing law. the later act to the extent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one. Additional Info: Two Categories of Implied Repeal: (1) Where provisions in the two acts on the same subject matter are in an irreconcilable conflict. military reservations. it will operate to repeal the earlier law. unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exist in the terms of the new and old laws. The presumption is against inconsistency and repugnancy for the legislature is presumed to know the existing laws on the subject and not to have enacted inconsistent or conflicting statutes. 699 and still others. it is apparent that the new Code does not cover nor attempt to cover the entire subject matter of the Old Code. ESSO Standard Eastern. Commission on Elections Presumption against absurdity Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. (2) If the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute. FACTS: . Paras vs. such as the provisions on notaries public. There are several matters treated in the Old Code which are not found in the new Code. DOCTRINE: Statutes must receive a sensible construction such as will give effect to the legislative intention so as to avoid an unjust or absurd conclusion. the public bonding law. *PETITION GRANTED AND COA WAS ORDERED TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO PETITIONER’S CLAIM FOR BENEFITS. It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that repeals of statutes by implication are not favored. Esso Standard Eastern. Presumption against Ineffectiveness: Danilo E. the leave law. claims for sickness benefits under Sec. This latter situation falls under the category of an implied repeal. Comparing the two Codes. Inc. and the Court of Tax Appeals Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.

961. and that a tax credit could not be considered until it has been finally approved and the taxpayer duly notified thereof.00.00 was approved only on August 5. as of that year. *PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.994. but only on the amount of P146. as early as July 15. it could not be availed of in reduction of ESSO’s earlier tax deficiency for the year 1960.00. P367.033. 1961 to April 18. that sum unquestionably belonged to ESSO. ISSUE: Whether or not ESSO is entitled to refund for the difference between deficiency tax and ESSO’s earlier overpayment. RULING: ESSO is entitled to refund for the difference between deficiency tax and ESSO’s earlier overpayment. ESSO thus asked for a refund.994. this appeal by the Commissioner CONTENTION: Petitioner: Income taxes are determined and paid on annual basis. 1964.00 representing excess payment.00.00 (for which it had been granted a tax credit).033. That Court ordered payment to ESSO of its refund-claim in the amount of P39. 1964.00).  July 10. which would reduce the deficiency tax liability for 1960. 1964 – ESSO paid under protest the amount alleged to be due. Since in this case.  The Commissioner of Internal Revenue denied the claim for refund. and that such determination and payment of annual taxes are separate and independent transactions. It was accordingly granted a tax credit in this amount by the Commissioner on August 5. as petitioner Commissioner subsequently acknowledged.94 as overpaid interest.033. and ESSO’s earlier overpayment of P221. the difference of said deficiency (P367. 1964 – the Commissioner wrote to ESSO demanding payment of the deficiency tax. ESSO protested the computation of interest.  August 10.00. 1960. Having been paid and received by mistake. ESSO appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals.787. ESSO overpaid its 1959 income tax by P221.994. the tax credit of P221. It claimed that it should not have been required to pay interest on the total amount of the deficiency tax.1964. . 1960. there was as yet no tax credit to speak of.  1960 – ESSO’s payment of its income tax for 1960 was found to be short by P367. contending it was more than that properly due. including the interest as reckoned by the Commissioner. together with interest for the period from April 18.033. as respondent Court of Tax Appeals has stressed. Hence. The fact is that.the Government already had in its hands the sum of P221.

Court of Appeals .Cesario Ursua vs.