Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Manila Railroad Company Credit Union Inc vs Manila Railroad

Company

88 SCRA 616, February 28, 1970

Jurisprudence: Where the law is clear and free from ambiguity, there is no room for interpretation, only
application

Facts:

In this petition for mandamus, seeking the reversal of the decision of the lower court, the petitioner-
appellant, a credit union organization, contends that Section 62 of Republic Act no. 2023 (RA 2023)
provides that in effect the law does not only compel the employer to deduct the loan of the member of
the cooperative but also to convert credit union’s credit into a first -priority credit deducted from the
salary of the members of the cooperative.

The respondent argument which the lower court favoured is that that there is nothing in said provision
from which it could be implied that the respondent must give top priority to obligations of the nature of
that payable to petitioner, and that therefore respondent company did not violate Sec 62 of RA 2023.
Rather, it implemented the provision of the law.

Issue: Whether or not Sec 62 of RA 2023 compels the respondent to prioritize the deduction of the
credit union's credit from the salary of the employees who have incurred loans from the petitioner.

Held:

No. The Court ruled in favor of the respondent and held the lower court’s decision.

It is a rule in statutory construction that when the law is clear and free from ambiguity, there is no room
for interpretation, only application.

In the given case, the Court ruled saying that the applicable provision of Republic Act No. 2023 quoted
earlier, speaks for itself. There is no ambiguity. As thus worded, it was so applied. Petitioner-appellant
cannot therefore raise any valid objection. For the lower court to view it otherwise would have been to
alter the law. That cannot be done by the judiciary. That is a function that properly appertains to the
legislative branch.

Hence, petition is denied.