Statutory Construction

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Aids & In Pari Materia

ANTONIO A. MECANO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON SECTION 27. Repealing Clause. — All laws, decrees, orders,
AUDIT, respondent. rules and regulations, or portions thereof, inconsistent with
this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Facts:
 Mecano seeks to nullify the decision of the COA in its This is a general repealing provision. It is a clause which
7th indorsement, denying his claim for predicates the intended repeal under the condition that a
reimbursement under Sec. 699 of the Revised substantial conflict must be found in existing and prior acts.
Administrative Code in the total amount of P40, 831 The failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that
for medical expenses for cholecystitis. the intent was not to repeal any existing law, unless an
irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exist in the
Petitioner’s Argument Respondent’s Argument terms of the new and old laws
 the issuance of the  Sec. 699 was
Administrative repealed by the
Code did not Administrative
operate to repeal Code of 1987.
or abrogate in its  the same section
entirety the was not restated Before there can be a repeal, there must be a clear showing
Revised nor re- enacted in on the part of the lawmaker that the intent in enacting the
Administrative the Administrative new law was to abrogate the old one.
Code, including the Code of 1987 Implied Repeal
particular Section  Claim may be filed
699 of the latter. with the 1. two acts on the same subject matter are in an
Employee’s irreconcilable conflict, the later act to the extent of
Compensation the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the
Commission earlier one (Irreconcilable conflict between certain
considering that provisions of the old and new law)
the illness of 2. later act covers the whole subject of the earlier
Director Mecano one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it will
occurred after the operate to repeal the earlier law (The new law
effectivity of the replaces the old new in entirety).
Administrative
Code of 1987
First Type of Repeal
Issue:
The COA failed to demonstrate that the provisions of the two
Whether or not the Administrative Code of 1987 repealed or Codes on the matter of the subject claim are in an
abrogated Section 699 of the RAC irreconcilable conflict. In fact, there can be no such conflict
because the provision on sickness benefits of the nature being
Ruling: claimed by petitioner has not been restated in the
Administrative Code of 1987.
COA’s Contention: “whereas" clauses of the new
Administrative Code, it can be gleaned that it was the intent Contention of COA: the fact that Section 699 was not restated
of the legislature to repeal the old Code in the Administrative Code of 1987 meant that the same
section had been repealed
The question of whether a particular law has been repealed
or not by a subsequent law is a matter of legislative intent. SC: The fact that a later enactment may relate to the same
The lawmakers may expressly repeal a law by incorporating subject matter as that of an earlier statute is not of itself
therein a repealing provision which expressly and specifically sufficient to cause an implied repeal of the prior act, since the
cites the particular law or laws, and portions thereof, that are new statute may merely be cumulative or a continuation of
intended to be repealed. A declaration in a statute, usually in the old one. What is necessary is a manifest indication of
its repealing clause, that a particular and specific law, legislative purpose to repeal.
identified by its number or title, is repealed is an express
repeal; all others are implied repeals. Second Type of Repeal:

Takeaway: There are two kinds of repeal, expressed and Comparing the two Codes, it is apparent that the new Code
implied. does not cover nor attempt to cover the entire subject matter
Statutory Construction
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Aids & In Pari Materia
of the old Code. There are several matters treated in the old costs and other charges incident to the importation
Code which are not found in the new Code, such as the into the Philippines of "mono- sodium glutamate"
provisions on notaries public, the leave law, the public  Before said dates, defendant had been refunding to
bonding law, military reservations, claims for sickness benefits the plaintiff the exchange taxes paid by him for the
under Section 699, and still others importation of the same substance mono-sodium
glutamate under RA 601, Section 2.
According to Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 of the Secretary of
Justice, what appears clear is the intent to cover only those RA 601, Section 2
aspects of government that pertain to administration, . . . the tax collected . . . on foreign exchange used
organization and procedure, understandably because of the for the payment of the cost, transportation
many changes that transpired in the government structure and/or other charges incident to importation in
since the enactment of the RAC decades of years ago. the Philippines of stabilizers and flavors . . . shall
be refunded to any importer making application
Before there can be an implied repeal under this category, it therefor . . ..
must be the clear intent of the legislature that the later act be
the substitute to the prior act. RA 650 (effective July 1, 1951) created Import
Control Commission, Appendix A:
Class notes: There was no intent to repeal the law in its
entirety because there are provisions in the old law that are Chemicals, Drugs, Dyes, Medicines and Medical
not in the law. It only intends to cover certain aspects of the Equipment and Supplies" the following: "flavoring
old law. extracts: 'ajinomoto, vetsin, etc.'" "Ajinomoto"
and "Vetsin" are trademarks of commercial
Contention of COA: this opinion carries in the determination products in the preparation of which, mono-
of this controversy inasmuch as the body which had been sodium glutamate largely enters.
entrusted with the implementation of this particular provision
has already rendered its decision.
 When the Import Control Commission was abolished
by operation of law, its functions were assumed by
SC: Administrative decisions may be reviewed by the courts
the Monetary Board of the defendant Central Bank.
upon a showing that the decision is vitiated by fraud,
 Circular No. 44, specifically, Regulation No. 1, to
imposition or mistake. It has been held that Opinions of the
which is attached Appendix A, approved by the
Secretary and Undersecretary of Justice are material in the
Monetary Board on June 30, 1953, there appears
construction of statutes in pari materia.
under item No. 510147, the following: "Flavoring
preparations — Mono-Sodium Glutamate"
Implied Repeal are not Favored
Before meeting the After the meeting
The presumption is against inconsistency and repugnancy for
Director of the Institute with the Director of
the legislature is presumed to know the existing laws on the
of Science and the Institute of
subject and not to have enacted inconsistent or conflicting
Technology (Resolution Science and
statutes.
No. 756) Technology
The officer in charge of The same officer
Treatment of new law
the exchange tax changed his mind
administration of after he had a
The new law is simply a continuation of the old law.
defendant Central Bank, conference with the
submitted a Director of the
memorandum to the Institute of Science
Monetary Board, and Technology on
LIM HOA TING, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CENTRAL BANK OF THE
suggesting that mono- the meaning and
PHILIPPINES, defendant-appellant.
sodium glutamate be "no scope of the terms
longer classified as a "condiment" and
Facts:
flavor". "flavor".
 Lim Hoa Ting paid the defendant Bank the amount of
Reasons: Flavor - general term
P650.26 and P1,526.23 on November 11, 1954 and
(1) Lea and Perrin's which includes those
April 5, 1955, respectively, or a total of P2,176.49,
sauce, onions, preparations
representing the 17 per cent exchange tax on the
garlic, catsup regarded as
sale of foreign exchange, for the payment of the
and even condiments even if
Statutory Construction
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Aids & In Pari Materia
common salt such preparations Central Bank’s Contention: mono-sodium glutamate is not a
might also be contain pepper, flavoring extract but rather a condiment
considered mustard, garlic, and
flavors when other spices. With no disrespect to the scientific opinions cited by the
they are really defendant Bank, we prefer to accept the opinion of our local
condiments and Institute of Science and Technology, which holds that mono-
seasoning sodium glutamate is a flavor or flavoring extract, and that it
agents and, even includes condiments. Furthermore, according to the
therefore, record, mono-sodium glutamate has in the past been
exchange taxes consistently classified and considered as a flavor and flavoring
paid for their extract, not only by the Import Control Commission, but also
importation by its successor, the defendant Bank itself, to say nothing of
should also be the fact that the law itself seems to have favored this
refunded. interpretation. This contemporaneous construction is highly
(2) its importation persuasive:
had increased
considerably to "The practice and interpretive regulations by officers,
the prejudice of administrative agencies, departmental heads and other
the revenues of officials charged with the duty of administering and
the state enforcing a statute will carry great weight in determining the
operation of a statute." (2 Sutherland, Statutory
IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS Construction, p. 516).
WAS NOT PUBLISHED IN
THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE "In the construction of a doubtful and ambiguous law, the
contemporaneous construction (executive construction) of
those who are called upon to act under the law, and were
 Reply of officer of inquiry of plaintiff’s counsel: appointed to carry its provisions into effect, is entitled to
very great respect." (Edwards Lessee vs. Darby, 12 Wheat.
"Please be informed that in a recent certification 206, 210).
made by the Director of Science and Technology,
mono-sodium glutamate is considered a 'flavor' and
as such, the tax exemption provided for by the
Exchange Tax Law covers the above-mentioned item ALBINO S. CO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
of importation. You may, therefore, accordingly PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
resume filing your applications for exemption and
refund but through your negotiating bank, in Facts:
accordance with the latest procedure promulgated
by the Central Bank on the matter." Take note for retroactivity
 Acting upon said advice, plaintiff filed his application
No. 422-7 for the refund of the two amounts  September 1, 1983 – Albino Co delivered to the
aforementioned, totalling P2,176.49, but the salvaging firm check drawn against the Associated
defendant Central Bank refused to make the refund, Citizen’s Bank
thereby precipitating the initiation of the present  January 3, 1984 – check was deposited and
court proceedings for the collection thereof. subsequently dishonored two days after being a
 Trial court held that mono-sodium glutamate comes closed account
under the definition of flavors and flavoring extracts,  September 21, 1987 – ruling on Que v People
and therefore, exchange taxes paid for its
importation were refundable, and in its decision
ordered defendant Central Bank to make the refund.
 A criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa
Bilang 22 was filed by the salvage company against
Issue:
Albino Co with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City.
 The case eventuated in Co's conviction of the crime
Whether mono-sodium glutamate comes under the definition
charged, and his being sentenced to suffer a term of
of flavors
imprisonment of sixty (60) days and to indemnify the
salvage company in the sum of P361,528.00.
Ruling:
 Co appealed to the CA.
Statutory Construction
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Aids & In Pari Materia
decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution
Petitioner’s Argument Respondent’s Argument shall form a part of the legal system . . .'
- reversible error for - Citing Senarillos v.
the Regional Trial Hermosisima, 101 It would seem, then, that the weight of authority is decidedly
Court to have Phil. 561, the in favor of the proposition that the Court's decision of
relied, as basis for Appellate Court September 21, 1987 in Que v. People, 154 SCRA 160 (1987)14
its verdict of opined that the — i.e., that a check issued merely to guarantee the
conviction, on the Que doctrine did performance of an obligation is nevertheless covered by B.P.
ruling rendered on not amount to the Blg. 22 — should not be given retrospective effect to the
September 21, passage of new law prejudice of the petitioner and other persons similarly
1987 by this Court but was merely a situated, who relied on the official opinion of the Minister of
in Que v. People construction or Justice that such a check did not fall within the scope of B.P.
- At the time of the interpretation of a Blg. 22.
issuance of the pre-existing one,
check on i.e., BP 22, enacted Legal Maxims/Rules on StatCon from several jurisprudence
September 1, on April 3, 1979.
1983, some four (1) 'legis interpretatio legis vim obtinet' — the
(4) years prior to interpretation placed upon the written law by a
the promulgation competent court has the force of law.
of the judgment in
Que v. People on (2) lex prospicit, non respicit, the law looks forward not
September 21, backward.
1987, the delivery
of a "rubber" or Mala Prohibita Overriden
"bouncing" check
as guarantee for an This is after all a criminal action all doubts in which, pursuant
obligation was not to familiar, fundamental doctrine, must be resolved in favor of
considered a the accused. Everything considered, the Court sees no
punishable compelling reason why the doctrine of mala prohibita should
offense, an official override the principle of prospectivity, and its clear
pronouncement implications as hereinabove set out and discussed, negativing
made in a Circular criminal liability.
of the Ministry of
Justice.

Issue: ANITA CHENG, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES WILLIAM SY and

TESSIE SY, respondents.
Circular (No. 4), dated December 15, 1981
Facts:
2.3.4. Where issuance of bouncing check is neither estafa
nor violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
Where the check is issued as part of an arrangement to
guarantee or secure the payment of an obligation,
whether pre-existing or not, the drawer is not criminally
liable for either estafa or violation of BP Blg 22
Whether judicial decisions have retroactive effect?
Ruling:
The principle of prospectivity has also been applied to judicial
decisions which, "although in themselves not laws, are
nevertheless evidence of what the laws mean, . . . (this being)
the reason why under Article 8 of the New Civil Code, 'Judicial
 Petitioner Anita Cheng filed two (2) estafa cases
before the RTC, Branch 7, Manila against respondent
spouses William and Tessie Sy (Criminal Case No. 98-
969952 against Tessie Sy and Criminal Case No. 98-
969953 against William Sy) for issuing to her
Philippine Bank of Commerce (PBC) Check Nos.
171762 and 71860 for P300,000.00 each, in payment
of their loan, both of which were dishonored upon
presentment for having been drawn against a closed
account.
 In the assailed Order 7 dated January 2, 2006, the
RTC, Branch 18, Manila, dismissed the complaint for
lack of jurisdiction, ratiocinating that the civil action
to collect the amount of P600,000.00 with damages
was already impliedly instituted in the BP Blg. 22
cases in light of Section l, paragraph (b) of Rule 111
of the Revised Rules of Court.
Statutory Construction
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Aids & In Pari Materia
 Petitioner’s argument:
o Since the BP Blg. 22 cases were filed on
January 20, 1999, the 2000 Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure promulgated on
December 1, 2000 should not apply.
o Petitioner also points out that she was not
assisted by any private prosecutor in the BP
Blg. 22 proceedings.
Rule 111, Section 1
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No
reservation to file such civil separately shall be allowed.
Issue:
Whether petitioner's action to recover respondents' civil
liability be also allowed to prosper separately after the BP Blg.
22 cases were dismissed?
Ruling:
Prospectivity of Procedural Law
It is now settled that rules of procedure apply even to cases
already pending at the time of their promulgation. The fact
that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants'
rights does not preclude their retroactive application to
pending actions. It is axiomatic that the retroactive
application of procedural laws does not violate any right of a
person who may feel that he is adversely affected, nor is it
constitutionally objectionable. The reason for this is that, as a
general rule, no vested right may attach to, nor arise from,
procedural laws
Be it remembered that rules governing procedure before the
courts, while not cast in stone, are for the speedy, efficient,
and orderly dispensation of justice and should therefore be
adhered to in order to attain this objective.
Non-assistance of private prosecutor
Petitioner indirectly protests that the public prosecutor failed
to protect and prosecute her cause when he failed to have
her establish the identities of the accused during the trial and
when he failed to appeal the civil action deemed impliedly
instituted with the BP Blg. 22 cases. On this ground, we agree
with petitioner.
Faced with the dismissal of the BP Blg. 22 cases, petitioner's
recourse pursuant to the prevailing rules of procedure would
have been to appeal the civil action to recover the amount
loaned to respondents corresponding to the bounced checks.
Hence, the said civil action may proceed requiring only a
preponderance of evidence on the part of petitioner. Her
failure to appeal within the reglementary period was
tantamount to a waiver altogether of the remedy to recover
the civil liability of respondents. However, due to the gross
mistake of the prosecutor in the BP Blg. 22 cases, we are
constrained to digress from this rule.
Moreover, we take into consideration the trial court's
observation when it dismissed the estafa charge in Criminal
Case No. 98-969953 that if there was any liability on the part
of respondents, it was civil in nature. Hence, if the loan be
proven true, the inability of petitioner to recover the loaned
amount would be tantamount to unjust enrichment of
respondents, as they may now conveniently evade payment
of their obligation merely on account of a technicality applied
against petitioner.
Court litigations are primarily designed to search for the truth,
and a liberal interpretation and application of the rules which
will give the parties the fullest opportunity to adduce proof is
the best way to ferret out the truth. The dispensation of
justice and vindication of legitimate grievances should not be
barred by technicalities.
BRIAD AGRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs HON. SERNA
L.M CAMUS ENGINEERING CORPORATION vs SECRETARY OF
LABOR
June 29, 1989
Facts:
BRIAD AGRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs HON. SERNA
 TUPAS filed a case against Briad for for alleged
underpayment/non-payment of minimum wage,
ECOLA, overtime pay, legal holiday pay, night shift
differential pay, 13th month pay and service
incentive leave pay.
 Regional Director Balbin resolved the against in favor
of the petitioners.
 Briad appealed to the NLRC contending that the
Regional Director has no authority to entertain
pecuniary claims of workers, following this Court's
ruling in Zambales Base Metals, Inc. v. Minister of
Labor, 4 in which we held that money claims are the
exclusive domain of the labor arbiters.
 The National Labor Relations Commission dismissed
the appeal on the strength of Executive Order No.
111, 5 amending Article 128(b) of the Labor Code, in
which jurisdiction to so act on monetary claims was
supposedly granted to regional directors. In its
petition to this Court, Briad Agro Development
reiterates its jurisdictional challenge.
Statutory Construction
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Aids & In Pari Materia
L.M CAMUS ENGINEERING CORPORATION vs SECRETARY OF
LABOR
 The money award in this case, as and for unpaid
emergency cost of living allowances, and thirteenth-
month and holiday pays, was granted originally in
favor of seventy-four employees of L.M. Camus
Engineering following an inspection by Regional
Director David Kong of the Department of Labor's
Regional Office No. IX, Zamboanga City.
 Forty-seven employees were, however, later dropped
from the case following an amicable settlement with
the petitioner.
law, that is to say, it was intended to remedy a defect that, in
the opinion of the legislature. This is clear from the proviso:
"The provisions of Article 217 of this Code to the contrary
Curative Statutes
Their purpose is to give validity to acts done that would
have been invalid under existing laws
Requisites:
1. they must not be against the Constitution
2. they cannot impair vested rights or the obligation
of contracts.

LM CAMUS RESPONDENT Nature:

They maintain that the
Order in question was
issued in the valid exercise
of the visitorial and
enforcement power of the
Minister (now Secretary) of
Labor and Employment,
thru the Regional Director
as his duly authorized
representative
Issue:
Whether jurisdiction over money claims is exclusive on the
Labor Arbiters of the NLRC by force of Art 217 of the Labor
Code
Ruling:
The Regional Office never
had any jurisdiction over In Garcia v. Martinez, 15 we held that legislation "which is
the nature of the dispute. in the nature of a curative statute" has "retrospective
application to a pending proceeding.
The petitioner moved for
reconsideration, impugning notwithstanding . . ." Plainly, the amendment was meant to
the authority of the make both the Secretary of Labor (or the various Regional
Regional Director. Directors) and the Labor Arbiters share jurisdiction.
Undersecretary Dionisio
dela Serna denied That Executive Order No. 111 intended to make the
reconsideration and jurisdiction to pass upon money claims, among the other
sustained the Regional cases mentioned by Article 217 of the Labor Code, concurrent
Director's jurisdiction. between the Secretary of Labor (or Regional Directors) and
the Labor Arbiters is clear from its perambulatory clauses.
Executive Order No. 111, it is obvious, was enacted to widen
workers' access to the Government for redress of grievances.
With respect to G.R. No. 82805, therefore, the Executive
Order squarely applies, while insofar as G.R. No. 83225 is
concerned, we give it a retroactive operation.

EO No. 111
Article 217 Labor Code – Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters
The provisions of Article 217 of this Code to the contrary
The Labor Arbiters shall have the original and exclusive
notwithstanding and in cases where the relationship of
jurisdiction to hear and decide within thirty (30) working days
employer- employee still exists, the Minister of Labor and
after submission of the case by the parties for decision, the
Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have
following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or
the power to order and administer, after due notice and
non-agricultural:
hearing, compliance with the labor standards provisions of this
Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of labor
3. All money claims of workers, including those based on non-
regulation officers or industrial safety engineers made in the
payment or underpayment of wages, overtime compensation,
course of inspection, and to issue writs of execution to the
separation pay and other benefits provided by law or
appropriate authority for the enforcement of their orders
appropriate agreement, except claims for employees'
except in case where the employer contests the findings of the
compensation, social security, medicare and maternity
labor regulation officer and raises issues which cannot be
benefits.
resolved without considering evidentiary matters that are not
verifiable in the normal course of inspection.
In view of the promulgation of Executive Order No. 111,
Zambales Base Metals v. Minister of Labor is no longer good Perambulatory Clauses
law. Executive Order No. 111 is in the character of a curative
WHEREAS, the welfare of the workers is a primary concern of
the government.
Statutory Construction
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Aids & In Pari Materia
November 9, 1989 Article XI (3) (i) of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code of 1991
(LGC).
 The CA issued a resolution denying the motion of the
The Court finds that reconsideration is proper in view of the OSG citing Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of
enactment of Republic Act No. 6715, approved on March 2, Appeals, Et Al that a LGU is an agency of the
1989. Republic.

RA No. 6715 Section 9 Issue:

Sec. 9. Article 217 of the same Code, as amended, is Whether only legal officers of a LGU can represent it in its
hereby further amended to read as follows: lawsuits.

"ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Ruling:

Commission — (a) Except as otherwise provided under
this code, the Labor Arbiters shall have original and Yes, only legal officers of a LGU can represent it in its lawsuits.
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30)
calendar days after the submission of the case by the On the matter of counsels' representation for the
parties for decision without extension, even in the government, the Administrative Code is not the only law that
absence of stenographic notes, the following cases delves on the issue. Specifically for local government units,
involving all workers, whether agricultural or non- the LGC limits the lawyers who are authorized to represent
agricultural: them in court actions, as the law defines the mandate of a
local government unit's legal officer.
(6) Except claims for employees compensation, social
security, medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims Administrative Code Local Government Code
arising from employer-employee relations, including those Section 35, Book IV, Title III, Book III, Title V, Article XI,
persons in domestic or household service, involving an Chapter 12 Section 481
amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00), Powers and Functions. — Sec. 481. Qualifications,
whether or not accompanied with a claim for The Office of the Solicitor Term, Powers and Duties. —
reinstatement. General shall represent the (a) No person shall be
Government of the appointed legal officer
Republic Act No. 6715, like its predecessors, Executive Order Philippines, its agencies and unless he is a citizen of the
No. 111 and Article 217, as amended, has retroactive instrumentalities and its Philippines, a resident of
application. Thus, when this new law divested Regional officials and agents in any the local government
Directors of the power to hear money claims, the divestment litigation, proceeding, concerned, of good moral
affected pending litigations. investigation or matter character, and a member of
requiring the services of a the Philippine Bar. . . . .
lawyer. When authorized by xxx xxx xxx
THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG), petitioner, the President or head of the The appointment of legal
vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE office concerned, it shall officer shall be mandatory
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF SAGUIRAN, LANAO DEL SUR, also represent government- for the provincial and city
respondents. owned or controlled governments and optional
corporations. The Office of for the municipal
Facts: the Solicitor General shall government.
constitute the law office of (b) The legal officer, the
 The CA issued a notice to the OSG to file a the Government and, as chief legal counsel of the
memorandum for the Municipality of Saguiran when such, shall discharge duties local government unit, shall
the municipality appealed the order of the RTC requiring the services of a take charge of the office of
directing them to include in its budget for the year lawyer. It shall have the legal services and shall:
2009 the claims for terminal leave benefits of former following specific powers xxx xxx xxx
members of the Sagguniang Bayan of Saguiran. and functions: (3) In addition to the
 On August 5, 2010, the OSG filed a Manifestation and (1) Represent the foregoing duties and
Motion12 requesting to be excused from filing the Government in the functions, the legal officer
memorandum on the ground of lack of legal Supreme Court and the shall:
authority to represent the Municipality of Saguiran. Court of Appeals in all (i) Represent the local
It reasoned that the Municipality of Saguiran had to criminal proceedings; government unit in all civil
be represented by its legal officer, pursuant to represent the Government actions and special
Statutory Construction
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Aids & In Pari Materia
and its officers in the proceedings wherein the NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, FACT-FINDING
Supreme Court, the Court local government unit or INTELLIGENCE BUREAU (FFIB) of the Office of the
of Appeals, and all other any official thereof, in his Ombudsman, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL
courts or tribunals in all civil official capacity, is a party : GOVERNMENT, respondents.
actions and special Provided, That, in actions or
proceedings in which the proceedings where a Facts:
Government or any officer component city or
thereof in his official municipality is a party  Petitioner, Manuel M. Lapid, Governor of the
capacity is a party; adverse to the provincial Province of Pampanga, and five other provincial
government or to another officers were charged with dishonesty, grave
component city or misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best
municipality, a special legal interest of the service for demanding and collecting
officer may be deployed to fees for quarrying operations beyond the P40.00
represent the adverse prescribed under the present provincial ordinance.
party;  On November 22, 1999 the Ombudsman rendered a
decision4 in the administrative case finding the
Doctrine: petitioner administratively liable for misconduct thus
suspending Lapid, Olalia, Sabado, and Tadeo for one
Pari Materia year without pay.
 A motion for reconsideration was filed on November
Statutes are in pari materia when they relate to the same 29, 1999. The Office of the Ombudsman, in an Order
person or thing or to the same class of persons or things, or dated 12 January 2000, denied the motion for
object, or cover the same specific or particular subject matter. reconsideration.
 Petitioner then filed a petition for review with the
It is axiomatic in statutory construction that a statute must be Court of Appeals on January 18, 2000 praying for the
interpreted, not only to be consistent with itself, but also to issuance of a temporary restraining order to enjoin
harmonize with other laws on the same subject matter, as to the Ombudsman from enforcing the questioned
form a complete, coherent and intelligible system. The rule is decision.
expressed in the maxim, "interpretare et concordare legibus  When the TRO lapsed without the CA resolving the
est optimus interpretandi," or every statute must be so prater for issuance of writ of preliminary injuction,
construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a petitioner filed a petition with the SC.
uniform system of jurisprudence.  March 22, 2000 – SC’s Third Division issued a
resolution requiring the respondents to comment on
Special Laws prevail over General Laws the petition
 March 23, 2000 – DILG implemented the assailed
Being a special law on the issue of representation in court decision of the Ombudsman.
that is exclusively made applicable to local government units,
the LGC must prevail over the provisions of the Administrative PETITIONER RESPONDENT
Code, which classifies only as a general law on the subject Proceeding from the The Solicitor-General
matter. premise that the decision of maintains that the said
the Ombudsman had not decision is governed by
A general law and a special law on the same subject are yet become final, the Section 12, Rule 43 of the
statutes in pari materia and should, accordingly, be read petitioner argued that the Rules of Court and is
together and harmonized, if possible, with a view to giving writs of prohibition and therefore, immediately
effect to both. The rule is that where there are two acts, one mandamus may be issued executory.
of which is special and particular and the other general which, against the respondent DILG
if standing alone, would include the same matter and thus for prematurely For its part, the Office of the
conflict with the special act, the special law must prevail implementing the assailed Ombudsman maintains that
since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than that decision. the Ombudsman Law and
of a general statute and must not be taken as intended to its implementing rules are
affect the more particular and specific provisions of the Finally, the petitioner silent as to the execution of
earlier act, unless it is absolutely necessary so to construe it in prayed for the setting aside decisions rendered by the
order to give its words any meaning at all. of the resolution issued by Ombudsman considering
the Court of Appeals dated that the portion of the said
March 22, 2000 and for the law cited by petitioner
GOVERNOR MANUEL M. LAPID, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE issuance of a new one pertains to the finality of
COURT OF APPEALS, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
Statutory Construction
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Aids & In Pari Materia
enjoining the respondents the decision but not to its with public officers, the similarity ends there. It is a principle
from enforcing the said enforcement pending in statutory construction that where there are two statutes
decision or, if it has already appeal. that apply to a particular case, that which was specially
been implemented, to designed for the said case must prevail over the other. 29 In
withdraw any action already The Office of the the instant case, the acts attributed to petitioner could have
taken until the issue of Ombudsman stated that it been the subject of administrative disciplinary proceedings
whether or not the said has uniformly adopted the before the Office of the President under the Local
decision of the provisions in the Local Government Code or before the Office of the Ombudsman
Ombudsman is Government Code and under the Ombudsman Act. Considering however, that
immediately executory has Administrative Code that petitioner was charged under the Ombudsman Act, it is this
been settled. decisions in administrative law alone which should govern his case.
disciplinary cases are
immediately executory.

 After the oral arguments, the Third Division issued a

Resolution stating:
“that the Court finds that the respondents failed to
establish the existence of a law mandating the
immediate execution of a decision of the
Ombudsman in an administrative case where the
penalty imposed is suspension for one year. The
immediate implementation of the decision of the
Ombudsman against petitioner is thus premature.

WHEREFORE, the respondents are ordered to

reinstate effective immediately the petitioner to the
position of Governor of the Province of Pampanga.”

 From this 5 April 2000 Resolution, the Offices of the

Solicitor-General and the Ombudsman filed the
instant motions for reconsideration.
Issue:

Whether the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman finding

herein petitioner administratively liable for misconduct and
imposing upon him a penalty of one (1) year suspension
without pay is immediately executory pending appeal.

Ruling:

Yes.

Doctrine:

In Pari Materia

Petitioner was charged administratively before the

Ombudsman and accordingly the provisions of the
Ombudsman Act should apply in his case.

Courts may not, in the guise of interpretation, enlarge the

scope of a statute and include therein situations not provided
or intended by the lawmakers.

And while in one respect, the Ombudsman Law, the

Administrative Code of 1987 and the Local Government Code
are in pari materia insofar as the three laws relate or deal