FACTS PREVAILING THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 202 AS A SPECIAL

LAW
Florentino Go, Jr., et al. v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 142276, August 14, 2001

DOCTRINE:

It has been settled that a general law and a special law on the same subject are statutes in pari
materia and should, accordingly, be read together and harmonized, if possible, with a view to giving
effect to both.

FACTS:

Petitioner Go was appointed in 1980 as Hearing Officer III of the Board of Transportation (BOT),
then the government’s land transportation franchising and regulating agency;

On June 19, 1987, Executive Order No. (EO) 202 was issued creating, within the Department of
Transportation and Communications (DOTC), the Land Transportation Franchising and
Regulatory Board (LTFRB) to replace the BOT. The issuance placed the LTFRB under the
administrative control and supervision of the DOTC Secretary;

On February 1, 1990, the DOTC Secretary extended Petitioner Go a promotional appointment

as Chief Hearing Officer (Chief, Legal Division);

The Civil Service Commission (CSC) later approved this permanent appointment. In her
Certification, LTFRB Administrative Division Chief Angulo stated that the promotion was to the
position of Attorney VI, Salary Grade (SG)-26, obviously following budgetary circulars allocating
SG-26 to division chief positions;

On March 13, 1991, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) informed the then
DOTC Secretary of the erroneous classification in the Position Allocation List (PAL) of the DBM
of two positions in his department, one in the LTFRB and, the other, in the Civil Aeronautics
Board (CAB). The error, according to the DBM, stemmed from the fact that division chief
positions in quasi-judicial or regulatory agencies, whose decisions are immediately appealable
to the department secretary instead of to the court, are entitled only to Attorney V, SG-25
allocation;

Unable to accept this new development where his position was allocated the rank of Attorney V,
SG-25, Petitioner Go wrote the DBM to question the summary demotion or downgrading of his
salary grade;

In his protest-letter, Petitioner Go excepted from the main reason proferred by the DBM that the
decisions or rulings of the LTFRB are only appealable to the DOTC Secretary under Sec. 6 of
EO 202 and not to the CA. As Petitioner Go argued, the aforecited proviso cannot prevail over
Sec. 9 (3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 129, or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, under
which appeals from decisions of quasi-judicial bodies are to be made to the CA;
In short, Petitioner Go contends that EO 202, a mere executive issuance, cannot be made to
prevail over BP 129, Sec. 9 (3), which provides for the appeal of the decisions and rulings of
quasi-judicial agencies to the CA.
ISSUE:

Is EO 202, a mere executive issuance, can prevail over BP 129, Sec. 9(3), which provides for
the appeal of the decisions and rulings of quasi-judicial agencies to the CA?

RULING:

YES. First, EO 202 was issued on June 19, 1987 by then President Corazon C. Aquino pursuant to
her legislative powers under the then revolutionary government. The legislative power of President
Aquino ended on July 27, 1987 when the first Congress under the 1987 Constitution convened. For
all intents and purposes, therefore, EO 202 has the force and effect of any legislation passed by
Congress.

Second, EO 202, creating the LTRFB, is a special law, thus enjoying primacy over a conflicting
general, anterior law, such as BP 129. It has been settled that a general law and a special law on the
same subject are statutes in pari materia and should, accordingly, be read together and harmonized,
if possible, with a view to giving effect to both. The rule is that where there are two acts, one of which
is special and particular and the other general which, if standing alone, would include the same
matter and thus conflict with the special act, the special law must prevail since it evinces the
legislative intent more clearly than that of a general statute and must not be taken as intended to
affect the more particular and specific provisions of the earlier act, unless it is absolutely necessary
so to construe it in order to give its words any meaning at all.

In this case, BP 129 must, on matters of appeals from LTFRB rulings, yield to the provision of EO
202, the subsequent special law being regarded as an exception to, or a qualification of, the prior
general act.