G.R No.

58870 – December 18, 1987

Cebu Institute of Technology
vs
Ople as Minister of Labor and Employment, et al.
GR No. 68345 – December 18, 1987
Divine Word College of Legazpi
vs
Vicente Leogardo Jr as Deputy Minister of Labor and Employment, et al.
Facts:

The case centers on the interpretation of section 3(a) of Pres. Decree No. 451 which
states, “That no increase in tuition or other school fees or charges shall be approved
unless sixty (60%) per centum of the proceeds is allocated for increase in salaries or
wages of the members of the faculty and all other employees of the school concerned,
and the balance for institutional development, student assistance and extension
services, and return to investments.”
On September 11, 1982, Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 (Education Act of 1982) was
promulgated, stating “Each private School shall determine its rate of tuition and other
school fees or charges. The rates and charges adopted by schools pursuant to this
provision shall be collectible, and their application or use authorized subject to rules and
regulations promulgated by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports.”
In a nutshell, the present controversy was precipitated by the claims of some school
personnel for allowances and other benefits and the refusal of the private schools
concerned to pay said allowances and benefits on the ground that said items should be
deemed included in the salary increases they had paid out of the 60% portion of the
proceeds from tuition fee increases provided for in PD 451. They are assailing the rules
and regulations promulgated by the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sports, which
deviates from the provisions of such law. section 3 (a) of Pres. Decree No. 451.
Petitioner: The line of reasoning of the petitioner appears to be based on the major
premise that under said decree and rules, 60% of the incremental proceeds from tuition
fee increases may be applied to salaries, allowances and other benefits of teachers and
other school personnel. In support of this major premise, petitioner cites various
implementing rules and regulations of the then Minister of Education, Culture and
Sports, to the effect that 60% of the incremental proceeds may be applied to salaries,
allowances and other benefits for members of the faculty and other school personnel.
Respondents: The Solicitor General, on the other hand, argues in support of the Order
of the public respondent that Pres. Dec. No. 451 allocates the 60% proceeds of tuition
fee increases exclusively for salary increases of teachers and non- teaching supportive
personnel of the school concerned, and that the Decree does not provide that said
salary increases would take the place of the COLA. Public respondents Deputy Minister
of Labor and Employment and Regional Director of the MOLE (Region V) likewise
attack the validity of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Pres. Dec. No.
451 cited by the petitioner insofar as said rules direct the allotment of the 60% of
incremental proceeds from tuition fee hikes for retirement plan, faculty development and
allowances. They argue that said rules and regulations were invalid for having been
promulgated in excess of the rule-making authority of the then Minister of Education
under Pres. Dec. No. 451 which mandates that the 60% of incremental proceeds from
tuition fee hikes should be allotted solely for salary increases.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the implementing rules and regulations promulgated by MECS
pursuant to PD 451 is valid.
2. Whether or not the implementing rules and regulations promulgated by MECS
pursuant to BP232 is valid.

Held:
1. No. The alleged implementing rules and regulations promulgated by the then MECS
to the effect that allowances and other benefits may be charged against the 60% portion
of the proceeds of tuition fee increases provided for in Section 3(a) of Pres. Dec. No. 45
1, suffice it to say that these were issued ultra vires, and therefore not binding upon this
Court.
The rule-making authority granted by Pres. Dec. No. 451 is confined to the
implementation of the Decree and to the imposition of limitations upon the approval of
tuition fee increases, to wit:
SEC. 4. Rules and Regulations. — The Secretary of Education and Culture is hereby
authorized, empowered and directed to issue the requisite rules and regulations for the
effective implementation of this Decree. He may, in addition to the requirements and
limitations provided for under Sections 2 and 3 hereof, impose other requirements and
limitations as he may deem proper and reasonable.
The power does not allow the inclusion of other items in addition to those for which 60%
of the proceeds of tuition fee increases are allocated under Section 3(a) of the Decree.
Rules and regulations promulgated in accordance with the power conferred by law
would have the force and effect of law if the same are germane to the subjects of the
legislation and if they conform with the standards prescribed by the same law. Since the
implementing rules and regulations cited by the private schools adds allowances and
other benefits to the items included in the allocation of 60% of the proceeds of tuition
fee increases expressly provided for by law, the same were issued in excess of the rule-
making authority of said agency, and therefore without binding effect upon the courts. At
best the same may be treated as administrative interpretations of the law and as such,
they may be set aside by this Court in the final determination of what the law means.

2. Yes. The statutory grant of rule-making power to administrative agencies like the
Secretary of Education is a valid exception to the rule on non-delegation of legislative
power provided two conditions concur, namely: 1) the statute is complete in itself,
setting forth the policy to be executed by the agency, and 2) said statute fixes a
standard to which the latter must conform.
Given the abovementioned policies and objectives, there are sufficient standards to
guide the Minister of Education in promulgating rules and regulations to implement the
provisions of the Education Act of 1982, As in the Ericta and Tablarin cases, there is
sufficient compliance with the requirements of the non-delegation principle.