Mecano Vs COA Case Digest
Ponente: CAMPOS, JR.
FACTS
Petitioner requested reimbursement for his expenses. He justifies that he is entitled to the benefits under Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 (RAC).
Commission on Audit (COA) Chairman, in his 7th Indorsement, denied the petitioner’s claim. COA states that Section 699 of the RAC had been repealed by the Administrative Code of 1987 (Exec. Order No. 292).
For the reason that the same section was not restated nor re-enacted in the latter.
Petitioner also anchored his claim on Department of Justice Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 by Secretary Drilon stating that “the issuance of the Administrative Code did not operate to repeal or abrogate in its entirety the Revised Administrative Code.
The COA, on the other hand, strongly maintains that the enactment of the Administrative Code of 1987 operated to revoke or supplant in its entirety the RAC.
RELATED:
- People v Mendoza Case Digest G.R. No. L-5877, Sept. 28, 1954
- De Jesus vs Syquia Case Digest -58 Phil 866 – G.R. No. L-39110, November 28, 1933
- Geluz v. Court of Appeals Case Digest – G.R. No. L-16439 – July 20, 1961
- Tenchavez v Escaño Case Digest – L-19671, November 29, 1965
- Chi-Ming Tsoi vs Gina Lao – Case Digest G.R. №119190 January 16, 1997
- Tañada vs Tuvera Case Digest – G.R. No. L-63915 April 24, 1985
- Andal v Macaraig Case Digest. GR No. 2474, May 30, 1951
Issue
Whether or not the Administrative Code of 1987 repealed or abrogated Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917.
Ruling
NO. Petition granted. Respondent ordered to give due course on petitioner’s claim for benefits.
Conclusion
Repeal by implication proceeds on the premise that where a statute of later date clearly reveals an intention on the part of the legislature to abrogate a prior act on the subject, that intention must be given effect.
Hence, before there can be a repeal, there must be a clear showing on the part of the lawmaker that the intent in enacting the new law was to abrogate the old one. The intention to repeal must be clear and manifest; otherwise, at least, as a general rule, the later act is to be construed as a continuation of, and not a substitute for, the first act and will continue so far as the two acts are the same from the time of the first enactment.
It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that repeals of statutes by implication are not favored. The presumption is against inconsistency and repugnancy for the legislature is presumed to know the existing laws on the subject and not to have enacted inconsistent or conflicting statutes. The two Codes should be read in pari materia.
Mecano Vs COA Case Digest
KASILAG VS RODRIGUEZ Case Digest
