HON. SEC. PEREZ (AS DOE SECRETARY) V. LPG REFILLERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILS.

Facts:

B.P. Blg. 33 penalizes illegal trading, hoarding, overpricing, adulteration, underdelivery, and underfilling
of petroleum products, as well as possession for trade of adulterated petroleum products and of
underfilled LPG cylinders. The law set the monetary penalty for violators to a minimum of P20,000 and a
maximum of P50,000.

To implement the law the DOE issued Circular No. 2000-06-010. Respondent LPG Refillers Association of
the Philippines, Inc. (LPG Refillers) asked the DOE to set aside the Circular for being contrary to law. DOE
denied the request.

LPG Refillers then filed a petition for prohibition and annulment of the Circular with the RTC. RTC
nullified the Circular on the ground that it introduced new offenses not included in the law (per RTC: the
Circular, in providing penalties on a per cylinder basis for each violation, might exceed the maximum
penalty under the law).

DOE argued: penalties for the acts and omissions enumerated in the Circular are sanctioned by B.P. Blg.
33 and R.A. No. 8479. LPG Refillers countered: enabling laws do not expressly penalize the acts and
omissions enumerated in the Circular. Neither is the Circular supported by R.A. No. 7638 since the said
law does not pertain to LPG traders.

RTC denied Motion for Reconsideration.

Hence this petition for review on certiorari to SC.

Issue: W/N the DOE Circular is void on the ground that it introduced new offences not punished under
B.P. Blg. 33?

Held & Ratio: DOE Circular is valid.

For an administrative regulation to have the force of penal law (1) the violation of the administrative
regulation must be made a crime by the delegating statute itself; and (2) the penalty for such violation
must be provided by the statute itself.

The Circular satisfies the first requirement. B.P. Blg. 33, criminalizes illegal trading, adulteration,
underfilling, hoarding, and overpricing of petroleum products. Under this general description of what
constitutes criminal acts involving petroleum products, the Circular merely lists the various modes by
which the said criminal acts may be perpetrated, namely: no price display board, no weighing scale, no
tare weight or incorrect tare weight markings, no authorized LPG seal, no trade name, unbranded LPG
cylinders, no serial number, no distinguishing color, no embossed identifying markings on cylinder,
underfilling LPG cylinders, tampering LPG cylinders, and unauthorized decanting of LPG cylinders. These
specific acts and omissions are obviously within the contemplation of the law, which seeks to curb the
pernicious practices of some petroleum merchants.

As for the second requirement: B.P. Blg. 33, provides that the monetary penalty for any person who
commits any of the acts aforestated is limited to a minimum of P20,000 and a maximum of P50,000.
Under the Circular, the maximum pecuniary penalty for retail outlets is P20,000, an amount within the
range allowed by law. However, the Circular is silent as to any maximum penalty for the refillers,
marketers, and dealers. This mere silence, does not amount to violation of the statutory maximum limit.
The mere fact that the Circular provides penalties on a per cylinder basis does not in itself run counter to
the law since all that B.P. Blg. 33 prescribes are the minimum and the maximum limits of penalties.

It is B.P. Blg. 33, which defines what constitute punishable acts involving petroleum products and which
set the minimum and maximum limits for the corresponding penalties. The Circular merely implements
the said law, albeit it is silent on the maximum pecuniary penalty for refillers, marketers, and dealers.

Noteworthy, the enabling laws on which the Circular is based were specifically intended to provide the
DOE with increased administrative and penal measures