Tañada vs Tuvera Case Digest

Mecano Vs COA Case Digest – G.R. No. 103982. December 11, 1992

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 COA states that Section 699 of the RAC had been repealed by the  Administrative Code of 1987 (Exec.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:


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Whether or not the Administrative Code of 1987 repealed or abrogated Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917.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

Total
1
Shares
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts