People vs.

Santos - Santos owns two fishing boats - the boats were caught fishing within the shoreline of Corregidor without the permission of the Sec. of Agriculture and Commerce - Sec. 28 of AO 2 issued by the Sec. of Agriculture and Commerce states that "No boats licensed in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 4003 and this order to catch, collect, gather, take, or remove fish and other sea products from Philippine waters shall be allowed to fish, loiter, or anchor within 3 kilometers of the shore line of islands and reservations over which jurisdiction is exercised by naval or military authorities of the United States, particularly Corregidor, Pulo Caballo, La Monja, El Fraile, and Carabao, and all other islands and detached rocks lying between Mariveles Reservation on the north side of the entrance to Manila Bay and Calumpan Point Reservation on the south side of said entrance: Provided, That boats not subject to license under Act No. 4003 and this order may fish within the areas mentioned above only upon receiving written permission therefor, which permission may be granted by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce upon recommendation of the military or naval authorities concerned.' - violation of this act will be penalized under Sec. 45 of Federal Penal Code - above-stated order issued by Sec. of Agriculture of Commerce by virtue of Sec. 4, Act No. 4003: "The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources shall from time to time issue such instructions, orders, rules and regulations consistent with this Act, as may be necessary and proper to carry into effect the provisions thereof and for the conduct of proceedings arising under such provisions. - Act No. 4003 contains no similar provision prohibiting boats not subject to license from fishing within three kilometers of the shore line of islands and reservations over which jurisdiction is exercised by naval and military authorities of the United States, without permission from the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce upon recommendation of the military and naval authorities concerned. Inasmuch as the only authority granted to the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, by section 4 of Act No. 4003, is to issue from time to time such instructions, orders, rules, and regulations consistent with said Act, as may be necessary and proper to carry into effect the provisions thereof and for the conduct of proceedings arising under such provisions; and inasmuch as said Act No. 4003, as stated, contains no provisions similar to those contained in the above quoted conditional clause of section 28 of Administrative Order No. 2, the conditional clause in question supplies a defect of the law, extending it. This is equivalent to legislating on the matter, a power which has not been and cannot be delegated to him, it being exclusively reserved to the then Philippine Legislature by the Jones Law, and now to the National Assembly by the Constitution of the Philippines. Such act constitutes not only an excess of the regulatory power conferred upon the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, but also an exercise of a legislative power which he does not have, and therefore said conditional clause is null and void and without effect - For the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion and so hold that the conditional clause of section 28 of Administrative Order No. 2. issued by the

Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, is null and void and without effect, as constituting an excess of the regulatory power conferred upon him by section 4 of Act No. 4003 and an exercise of a legislative power which has not been and cannot be delegated to him. - CASE DISMISSED ================================== People vs. Que Po Lay - The appellant who was in possession of foreign exchange consisting of U.S. dollars, U.S. checks and U.S. money orders amounting to about $7,000 failed to sell the same to the Central Bank through its agents within one day following the receipt of such foreign exchange as required by Circular No. 20. - Claim: Circular No. 20 not published in the Official Gazette as required by CA 638 and Act 2930, consequently, it has no force and effect. - SolGen's claim: CA 638 and Act 2930 do not require the publication in the Official Gazette - We agree with the Solicitor General that the laws in question do not require the publication of the circulars, regulations and notices therein mentioned in order to become binding and effective. All that said two laws provide is that laws, resolutions, decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, notices and documents required by law to be of no force and effect. In other words, said two Acts merely enumerate and make a list of what should be published in the Official Gazette, presumably, for the guidance of the different branches of the Government issuing same, and of the Bureau of Printing. - Sec. 11, Revised Administrative Code: 'statutes passed by Congress shall, in the absence of special provision, take effect at the beginning of the fifteenth day after the completion of the publication of the statute in the Official Gazette. (same goes with Art. 2 of New Civil Code) - In the present case, although circular No. 20 of the Central Bank was issued in the year 1949, it was not published until November 1951, that is, about 3 months after appellant's conviction of its violation. It is clear that said circular, particularly its penal provision, did not have any legal effect and bound no one until its publication in the Official Gazzette or after November 1951. In other words, appellant could not be held liable for its violation, for it was not binding at the time he was found to have failed to sell the foreign exchange in his possession thereof. - But the Solicitor General also contends that this question of non-publication of the Circular is being raised for the first time on appeal in this Court, which cannot be done by appellant. Ordinarily, one may raise on appeal any question of law or fact that has been raised in the court below and which is within the issues made by the parties in their pleadings. (Section 19, Rule 48 of the Rules of Court). But the question of non-publication is fundamental and decisive. If as a matter of fact Circular No. 20 had not been published as required by law before its violation, then

the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries are powerless to penalize it. the rules of administrative officers and boards. . An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress. 90-497 and 90-797. Sunday or Holiday. and the trial court may be said to have had no jurisdiction.Petitioner sent a letter addressed to CSC Chairman Patricia Sto. a part thereof corresponding to six (6) days is in order. Tomas raising the question: 'Is an employee who was on leave of absence without pay on a day before or on a day time immediately preceding a Saturday. 90-497. considering that employees paid on a monthly basis are not required to work on Saturdays.Issue: the validity of the respondent Commission's policy mandating salary deductions corresponding to the intervening Saturdays. this appeal to the SC. Maceren FACTS: The respondents were charged with violating Fisheries Administrative Order No. As electro fishing is not banned under that law. Had the lawmaking body intended to punish electro fishing. The old Fisheries Law does not expressly prohibit electro fishing. Resolutions No.120889 petitioner received his initial salary. APPELLANT ACQUITTED ======================================== People vs.During the pendency of this petition. he cannot be deprived of his pay or salary corresponding to the intervening Saturdays. the CFI affirmed the dismissal. ruling that the action of the DTI in deducting from the salary of petitioner. in effect. "Administrative regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law.DECISION REVERSED. a government-owned and controlled corporation under the Department of Agriculture. Sundays or Holidays where an employee without leave credits was absent on the immediately preceding working day. The lawmaking body cannot delegate to an executive official the power to declare what acts should constitute an offense.Because of these developments. Sundays or Holidays (in the factual situation posed). But the issue of whether or not the policy that had been adopted and in force since 1965 is valid or not." =================================== Peralta vs. . it would seem at first blush that this petition has become moot and academic since the very CSC policy being questioned has already been amended and.49 of the Handbook of Information on the Philippine Civil Service which states that "when an employee is on leave without pay on a day before or on a day immediately preceding a Saturday. 91-540 dated 23 April 1991 amending the questioned policy.Petitioner: a reading of the General Leave Law as contained in the other laws fails to disclose a specific provision which supports the CSC rule at issue. the law itself cannot be extended. CSC . or which conflict with the authority granting statute. General Administrative Service) on 15 December 1989 inquiring as to the law on salary deductions.Petitioner sent a memorandum to Amando T. Sunday or Holiday? . which have the effect of extending. . if the employee has no leave credits. . have already been set aside and superseded. His appointment was classified as "Reinstatement/Permanent". . the respondent Commission promulgated Resolution No. Where the legislature has delegated to executive or administrative officers and boards authority to promulgate rules to carry out an express legislative purpose. The municipal court quashed the complaint and held that the law does not clearly prohibit electro fishing.Amando T. subject of this petition for certiorari.Petitioner was appointed Trade-Specialist II on 25 September 1989 in the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). a penal provision to that effect could have been easily embodied in the old Fisheries Law. ISSUE: Whether the administrative order penalizing electro fishing is valid? HELD: NO. respondent Commission promulgated Resolution No. Sunday or Holidays. It can authorize the issuance of regulations and the imposition of the penalty provided for in the law itself. Alvis answered petitioner's query in a memorandum dated 30 January 1990 citing Chapter 5. he was working at the Philippine Cotton Corporation. Hence. it is . namely. Alvis (Chief. Before said appointment. hence the executive and judicial departments cannot consider the same. . and that the withholding (or deduction) of the same is tantamount to a deprivation of property without due process of law. or Holiday shall also be without pay. DTI deducted from his salary the amount corresponding to his absences during the covered period. Thus. also considered on leave of absence without pay on such Saturday. This was promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries under the old Fisheries Law and the law creating the Fisheries Commission. This question may be raised at any stage of the proceeding whether or not raised in the court below. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries exceeded their authority in issuing the administrative order. . Sunday. . Sunday or Holiday. do not represent a valid precise of the rule-making power. such Saturday.in the eyes of the law there was no such circular to be violated and consequently appellant committed no violation of the circular or committed any offense. and should be for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions. inclusive of Saturdays and Sundays. 84-1 which penalizes electro fishing in fresh water fisheries. By such regulations. remains unresolved. for reasons of public interest and public policy. 29 September 1989 and 20 October 1989. Since he had no accumulated leave credits.On 25 May 1990. covering the period from 25 September to 31 October 1989. . On appeal.

" and (2) for oppression. or after said non-working days. so that he will be considered as having had a leave of Friday. and the administrative interpretation of the law is at best advisory. 2625. 74-58 of the same department. 6713. And it is unfair and unjust to him that those days should be counted in the computation of leaves. R. whether or not they have accumulated leave credits.A. in computing these periods of leaves.With this in mind. 74-58 and of Section 7. The respondent Commission ruled that a reading of R. because actually the employee is entitled not to go to office during those days. the sponsorship speech of Senator Arturo M.The Civil Service Commission in its here questioned Resolution No. Javellana filed a Motion to Dismiss the administrative case against him on the ground mainly that DLG Memorandum Circulars Nos.The intention of the legislature in the enactment of R. Sunday and holidays are included in the computation so that if an employee should become sick and absent himself on a Friday and then he reports for work on a Tuesday. Javellana was an elected City Councilor of Bago City. . Neither the statute nor the circular trenches upon the Supreme Court's power and authority to prescribe rules on the practice of law.the CSC ruled in an earlier case that an employee who has no leave credits in his favor is not entitled to the payment of salary on Saturdays. 1980 in relation to DLG Memorandum Circular No. The Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No. Sunday or legal holiday is entitled to payment of his salary for said days. City Engineer Ernesto C. . 2625 specifically provides that government employees are entitled to fifteen days vacation leave of absence with full pay and fifteen (15) days sick leave with full pay. 41 (which became R.A. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus. 2 of Republic Act No. 2625 is not in accordance with the legislative intent. He said: The law actually provides for sick leave and vacation leave of 15 days each year of service to be with full pay. are not required by law to work on Saturdays. The fact remains that government employees. . or four days. misconduct and abuse of authority. Sundays and Holidays and thus they can not be declared absent on such non-working days. But under the present law. Sunday and Monday.When an administrative or executive agency renders an opinion or issues a statement of policy. No. 80-38 dated June 10. Sundays and Holidays in both cases. . 90-81 simply prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest between the discharge of their public duties and the private practice of their profession. Attorney Erwin B. Tolentino during the second reading of House Bill No. exclusive of Saturdays. . . C10-90 against Javellana for: (1) violation of Department of Local Government (DLG) Memorandum Circular No. among others.PETITION GRANTED ==================================== Javellana vs. .pursuant to CSC's delegated rule-making power.the duty of the Court to make a formal ruling on the validity or invalidity of such questioned policy. 80-38 in relation to DLG Memorandum Circular No. Section 5 of the Constitution is completely off tangent. Held: Memorandum Circular No. Sundays or Holidays unless such non-working days occur within the period of service actually rendered. as well as holidays. Divinagracia's complaint alleged that Javellana. for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means. paragraph b. in those instances where the law allows it.A. whether or not they have accumulated leave credits. has continuously engaged in the practice of law without securing authority for that purpose from the Regional Director. 2625 as referring only to government employees who have earned leave credits against which their absences may be charged with pay.A. 2625 does not show that a government employee who is on leave of absence without pay on a day before or immediately preceding a Saturday.Divinagracia filed Administrative Case No.Furthermore. Sections 284 and 285-A of the Revised Administrative Code applied to all government employee without any distinction. A different rule would constitute a deprivation of property without due process. 90-797 construed R. 2625). 80-38 and 90-81 are unconstitutional because the Supreme Court has the sole and exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law. . as required by DLG Memorandum Circular No. . it promulgated Resolution No. Department of Local Government. They cannot be or are not considered absent on non-working days. 91540.A.A. as its letters speak only of leaves of absence with full pay. the construction by the respondent Commission of R. On the other hand. Saturdays and Sundays. It has also been held that interpretative regulations need not be published. It follows that the effect of the amendment similarly applies to all employees enumerated in Sections 284 and 285-A. and a lawyer by profession. they cannot and should not be deprived of their salary corresponding to said non-working days just because they were absent without pay on the day immediately prior to. in the computation of the leave the Saturday and Sunday will be included. The same policy is reiterated in the Handbook of Information on the Philippine Civil Service. 2625 may be gleaned from. Negros Occidental. Saturday. Saturday. the law speaks of the granting of a right and the law does not provide for a distinction between those who have accumulated leave credits and those who have exhausted their leave credits in order to enjoy such right. it merely interprets a pre-existing law. Thus. 90-81 violate Article VIII. DILG Facts: This petition for review on certiorari involves the right of a public official to engage in the practice of his profession while employed in the Government. . otherwise known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.A.The purpose of the present bill is to exclude from the computation of the leave those days. before their amendment by R. an incumbent member of the City Council or Sanggunian Panglungsod of Bago City.

Due process should still be observed of course but use Ang Tibay v. 1993. their real employer. through RMC 37-93. in issuing the questioned DLG Circulars Nos. therefore not requiring. 80-30 and 90-81 and in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss the administrative charge against him. these 3 brands were considered local brands subjected to an ad valorem tax of 20 to 45%. 5. It amended partly Sec." If there are some prohibitions that apply particularly to lawyers. for its effectivity. on July 1. CIR argued that the memo circular was merely an interpretative ruling of the BIR which did not require notice and hearing. BELLOSILLO separate opinion: the administrative issuance was not quasi-legislative but quasi-judicial. CIR. More and Champion. citing Cuerdo vs. the area of public service. (see footnote below) the 3 brands should fall under Sec 142 (c) (2) NIRC and be taxed at 20 to 45%. engage in any occupation. aims to collect deficiencies on ad valorem taxes against Fortune Tobacco following a reclassification of foreign branded cigarettes. COA. Contrary to petitioner’s contention. 192 SCRA 199. In the first place. 1993. However. 166 SCRA 657). in reclassifying the 3 brands and raising their applicable tax rate. Fortune Tobacco manufactured the following cigaretter brands: Hope. lack of notice and hearing violated due process required for promulgated rules. did not simply interpret RA 7654 but legislated under its quasi-legislative authority. The reclassification was before RA 7654 took effect. 3. CTA was affirmed by CA. Ratio: 1. 2. Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). interpretative rules only provide guidelines to the law which the administrative agency is in charge of enforcing. Prior to RA 7654. Issue: WON RMC 37-93 was valid and enforceable Held: No. 3. In effect. we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent. CTA. designed to implement a primary legislation by providing the details thereof. of which petitioner Javellana is a councilman. Applying the amendment and nothing else. Version II Facts: CIR. the memo circular subjected the 3 brands to the provisions of Sec 142 (c) (1) NIRC imposing upon these brands a rate of 55% instead of just 20 to 45% under Sec 142 (c) (2) NIRC. On the other hand. hearing and filing with the UP Law Center? . Additional: As a matter of policy. or affect. it infringed on uniformity of taxation / equal protection since other local cigarettes bearing foreign brands had not been included within the scope of the memo circular. this Court accords great respect to the decisions and/or actions of administrative authorities not only because of the doctrine of separation of powers but also for their presumed knowledgeability and expertise in the enforcement of laws and regulations entrusted to their jurisdiction (Santiago vs. Moreover. RA 7654 was enacted by Congress on June 10. ==================================== Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. The complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Javiero and Catapang against City Engineer Divinagracia is in effect a complaint against the City Government of Bago City. 74-58 (in relation to Section 7[b-2] of RA 6713) prohibiting a government official from engaging in the private practice of his profession. petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued Revenue Memorandum Circular37-93 which reclassified the 3 brands as locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand subject to the 55% ad valorem tax. or teach in schools expect during session hours. Section 90 explicitly provides that sanggunian members "may practice their professions. 142 (c) of the NIRC 2. ISSUE: Is RMC 37-93 a mere interpretative ruling. which decided against the CIR. if such practice would represent interests adverse to the government. 1993 and took effect July 3. With respect to the present case. BIR. it is because of all the professions. It applies to all provincial and municipal officials in the professions or engaged in any occupation. the practice of law is more likely than others to relate to.Section 90 of the Local Government Code does not discriminate against lawyers and doctors. the petitioner violated Memorandum Circular No. 4. Deputy Executive Secretary. Promulgated legislative rules must be published. complaints against public officers and employees relating or incidental to the performance of their duties are necessarily impressed with public interest for by express constitutional mandate. as per RA 7654. Fortune Tobacco raised the issue of the propriety of the assessment to the CTA. Hence. Fortune Tobacco Version I Facts: 1. judgment against City Engineer Divinagracia would actually be a judgment against the City Government. the memo was not a mere interpretative rule but a legislative rule in the nature of subordinate legislation. There was no notice and hearing. CA. a public office is a public trust. By serving as counsel for the complaining employees and assisting them to prosecute their claims against City Engineer Divinagracia.

When an administrative rule is merely interpretative. The due observance of the requirements of notice. and of publication should not have been then ignored. Hence. it merely interprets a pre-existing law.) 5. for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means. Circular No. administrative interpretation of the law is at best merely advisory. In so doing. the enactment of RA 7654. In accord with this. 7. upon the other hand. (Prior to the issuance of the questioned circular. but a mere administrative interpretation in light of the amendments introduced by an amendatory law. in fact and most importantly. in computing the premiums due. 22 which provides that. been made in order to place "Hope Luxury. Rules and regulations when promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or authority conferred upon the administrative agency by law. ========================================= NFA vs Masada Security Agency FACTS: NFA had a 1-year contract with the services of MASADA in providing security services in their variousoffices in the region. When. of hearing. all employers will include in the employee’s remuneration all bonuses and overtime pay. CTA. Victorias Milling Compnay protested the circular as being contradictory to its previous Circular which expressly excluded overtime pay and bonus in the computation of premium contributions. before that new issuance is given the force and effect of law. This caused thefiling of the complaint. 22 is an administrative interpretation. . the RTWPB issued several wage orders increasing the daily wagerate. Evidently. CA DECISION AFFIRMED ==================================== Victorias Milling vs. Victorias questioned its validity for lack of authority on the part of the SSS to promulgate it without the approval of the President and for lack of publication in the OG." "Premium More" and "Champion" within the classification of locally manufactured cigarettes bearing foreign brands and to thereby have them covered by RA 7654. its applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance for it gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. 2. Specifically.Held: NO. 22 is a rule or regulation? HELD: NO. it legislated under its quasi-legislative authority. without RMC 37-93.” While prior to the amendment. Subsequently. verily." "Premium More. NFA made adjustments in the daily wage but denied the adjustments withrespect to other benefits and remunerations computed on the basis of the daily wage. 4. 22 is not a rule or regulation." and "Champion" cigarettes were in the category of locally manufactured cigarettes not bearing foreign brand subject to 45% ad valorem tax. ISSUE: Whether Circular No. Ratio Decidendi: 1. it thus became necessary for the SSS to interpret the effect of such deletion through Circular No. 6. Circular No. the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can facilitate or render least cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially adds to or increases the burden of those governed. ISSUE: Whether or not the liability of principals in service contracts under Section 6 of RA 6727 and the wage orders issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board is limited only to the increment in the minimum wage. in view of the amendment of the provisions of the Social Security Law defining the term “compensation." "Premium More. SSS argues that Circular No. When an administrative agency promulgates rules and regulations. SSS FACTS: The SSS issued Circular No. 3. as amended. There is a distinction between an administrative rule or regulation and an administrative interpretation of a law whose enforcement is entrusted to an administrative body. it behooves the agency to accord at least to those directly affected a chance to be heard. such exemption was deleted by the amendatory law. the new law would have its amendatory provisions applied to locally manufactured cigarettes which at the time of its effectivity were not so classified as bearing foreign brands. would have had no new tax rate consequence on private respondent's products. 22. in order to place "Hope Luxury. convinces us that the circular cannot be viewed simply as a corrective measure or merely as construing Section 142(c)(1) of the NIRC. 22 was issued by the SSS. In this case. Hence. "Hope Luxury. A rule is binding on the courts so long as the procedure fixed for its promulgation is followed and its scope is within the statutory authority granted by the legislature. partake of the nature of a statute. but has. it "makes" a new law with the force and effect of a valid law. particularly considering the circumstances under which it has been issued. bonuses and overtime pay were expressly exclude. On the other hand. A reading of RMC 37-93. and thereafter to be duly informed. and compliance therewith may be enforced by a penal sanction provided in the law. there is no need for approval of the President and publication in the OG to be effective. the BIR not simply intrepreted the law. the now disputed RMC 37-93 had to be issued. Hence. while when it renders an opinion or gives a statement of policy." and "Champion" cigarettes within the scope of the amendatory law and subject them to an increased tax rate.

This is so because all remuneration and benefits other than the increased statutory minimum wage would be shouldered and paid by the employer or service contractor to the workers concerned.e. or industries therein and issue the corresponding wage orders. At any rate.. however. it may not. Where a statute. If their intention was to extend the obligation of principals in service contracts to the payment of the increment in the other benefits and remuneration of workers. dismissed said petition. janitorial and similar services. holiday and rest day pay. While basis of said remuneration and benefits is the statutory minimum wage. i. however. plain and free from ambiguity. premium pay and other benefits granted to workers. On October 23. provinces. it must be given its literal meaning and applied without interpretation. The settled rule in statutory construction is that if the statute is clear. It is not within the province of this Court to inquire into the wisdom of the law for indeed. Payment of the increases in the wage rate of workers is ordinarily shouldered by the employer. petitioner filed before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) a complaint for breach of contract. Hence. is clearly erroneous. Hence. The general rule is that construction of a statute by an administrative agency charged with the task of interpreting or applying the same is entitled to great weight and respect. 18. Thus. the arbiter rendered a decision dismissing petitioner's complaint as well as private respondents' counterclaim.HELD: The National Wages and Productivity Commission is vested with the power to prescribe rules and guidelines for the determination of appropriate minimum wage and productivity measures at the regional. the law cannot be unduly expanded as to include those not stated in the subject provision. by interpretation or construction. 1995. but this was denied for having been filed outside of the required period. . The Court. all allowances and benefits as computed under the increased rate mandated by RA 6727 and the wage orders will be received by the workers. however. while the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards have the power to determine and fix the minimum wage rates applicable in their respective region. Substantially the same provision is incorporated in the wage orders issued by the RTWPB. After the parties filed their pleadings and supporting documents. in the end. administrative interpretations are at best advisory for it is the Court that finally determines what the law means. violation of property rights and damages against private respondents. is not bound to apply said rule where such executive interpretation. provincial or industry levels. Office of the President FACTS: On March 29. The presumption therefore is that lawmakers are well aware that the word "wage" as used in Section 6 means the statutory minimum wage. by its terms. as in the case at bar. Since the increase in wage referred to in Section 6 pertains to the "statutory minimum wage" as defined herein. NFA claims that its additional liability under the aforecited provision is limited only to the payment of the increment in the statutory minimum wage rate. or when there is no ambiguity in the law interpreted. the interest of the employees will not be adversely affected if the obligation of principals under the subject provision will be limited to the increase in the statutory minimum wage. petitioner got a copy of the decision of the Board of Commissioner of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. we are bound by the words of the statute. Petitioner argues that the period for appeal is actually 30 days pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and Administrative Order No. 1994. subject to the guidelines issued by the NWPC. the only logical conclusion is that the legislature intended to limit the additional obligation imposed on principals in service contracts to the payment of the increment in the statutory minimum wage. Besides... The term "wage" as used in Section 6 of RA 6727 pertains to no other than the "statutory minimum wage" which is defined under the Rules Implementing RA 6727 as the lowest wage rate fixed by law that an employer can pay his worker. the interpretation given by the labor agencies in the instant case which went as far as supplementing what is otherwise not stated in the law cannot bind this Court. 1995. night shift differential. The law is applied as it is. through wage orders. PETITION GRANTED ================================== SGMC vs. Series of 1987. In not so doing. Petitioner filed an appeal to the Office of the President on November 20. Section 6 of RA 6727. it would have so expressly specified. which shall not exceed eight hours a day. principals in service contracts cannot be made to pay the corresponding wage increase in the overtime pay. Expresio unius est exclusio alterius. the rate for a regular eight (8) hour work day. is expressly limited to certain matters. or when the language of the words used is clear and plain. Petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Board of Commissioners of the HLURB which. be extended to others. The basis thereof under Section 7 of the same Rules is the normal working hours. the prescribed increases or the additional liability to be borne by the principal under Section 6 of RA 6727 is the increment or amount added to the remuneration of an employee for an 8-hour work. The contention is meritorious. expressly lodged said obligation to the principals or indirect employers in construction projects and establishments providing security.

The procedure simply requires that the taxpayer must benotified of the findings of the Commissioner. theassessment shall be void. 8424 which took effect on January 1. PETITION DISMISSED ====================================== CIR vs. No.” (Adamson Ozanom Education Institution. 12-85. otherwise. and not declarative of certain rights and corresponding obligations. 12-85 because at the time that the assessment was issued. However. Adamson University Faculty and Employees Association.A. The period of appeal of 30 days in the Rules of Procedure of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board is invalid for being in conflict with Presidential Decree Nos. November 9. the assessment is void. 1344 provide that the decision of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board shall become final after the lapse of 15 days from the date of its receipt.1998. The Commissioner takes the position that since the assessment was issued at a time that the Regulations in force is RR No.D. HELD: The SC ruled that the 30-day period of appeal is subject to the qualification that there are no other statutory periods of appeal applicable. 12-99) came out only on September 6. 1993. the old provision of the NIRC (Section 229) wasamended and renumbered as Section 228 which in explicit language provided“The taxpayer otherwiseshall be informed in writing of the law and facts on which the assessment is made: otherwise. ISSUE: What is the status of an assessment issued in 1998 if it failed to inform the taxpayer of thelaw and the facts on which the assessment is made? Can this assessment be the basis of a compromise? HELD: The SC ruled that the assessment is void ab initio. as amended by R. Under the present provisions of the Tax Codeand pursuant to elementary due process. 957 and 1344.” This change was introduced by R. vs. noimplementing rules were as yet issued on the new procedure for issuing an assessment under Section228 of the NIRC.1989. The assessment notice followedthe old procedure laid down RR No.The provision of Section 228 which took effect on January 1. taxpayers must be informed in writing of the law and the factsupon which a tax assessment is based. 1998 is self executing. No.A. Tancinco died on July 8. Azucena Reyes FACTS: This case was borne out of these facts.ISSUE: Whether or not public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the reglementary period within which to appeal the decision of HLURB to public respondent is fifteen days. The rule prevailing under our jurisdiction is that “an administrative rule interpretative of a statute. the old rule in making an assessment should therefore be followed. the assessmentcannot in turn be used as a basis for the perfection of a tax compromise. A deficiencyestate tax assessment was issued against her estate on April 22. this is merely an administrative rule interpretative of the statute. Inc. While it is true that the implementing rules (RR No. 1999. 8424. Maria C. 1998. 957 and Section 2 of P. Being invalid. Section 15 of Presidential Decree No. 179 SCRA 279). No. is given retroactive effect as of the date of the effectivity of the statute. .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful