G.R. No. 1051 May 19, 1903THE UNITED STATES,complainant-appellee,vs.FRED L. DORR, ET AL.,defendants-appellants.F. G. Waite for appellants.Solicitor-General Araneta for appellee.LADD,J.:The defendants have been convicted upon a complaint charging them with the offense of writing, publishing, and circulating a scurrilous libel against the Government of the United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands. The complaint is based upon section 8 of Act No. 292 of the Commission, which is as follows:Every person who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, or which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities, or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, in the discretion of the court.The alleged libel was published as an editorial in the issue of the "Manila Freedom" of April 6, 1902, under the caption of "A few hard facts."The Attorney-General in his brief indicates the following passages of the article as those upon which he relies to sustain the conviction:Sidney Adamson, in a late letter in "Leslie's Weekly," has the following to say of the action of the Civil Commission in appointing rascally natives to important Government positions:"It is a strong thing to say, but nevertheless true, that the Civil Commission, through its ex-insurgent office holders, and by its continual disregard for the records of natives obtained during the military rule of the Islands, has, in its distribution of offices, constituted a protectorate over a set of men who should be in jail or deported. . . . [Reference is then made to the appointment of one Tecson as justice of the peace.] This is the kind of foolish work that the Commission is doing all over the Islands, reinstating insurgents and rogues and turning down the men who have during the struggle, at the risk of their lives, aided the Americans."xxx xxx xxxThere is no doubt but that the Filipino office holders of the Islands are in a good many instances rascals.xxx xxx xxxThe commission has exalted to the highest positions in the Islands Filipinos who are alleged to be notoriously corrupt and rascally, and men of no personal character.xxx xxx xxxEditor Valdez, of "Miau," made serious charges against two of the native Commissioners charges against Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera, which, if true, would brand the man as a coward and a rascal, and with what result? . . . [Reference is then made to the prosecution and conviction of Valdez for libel "under a law which specifies that the greater the truth the greater the libel."] Is it the desire of the people of the United States that the natives against whom these charges have been made (which, if true, absolutely vilify their personal characters) be permitted to retain their seats on the Civil Commission, the executive body of the Philippine Government, without an investigation?xxx xxx xxxIt is a notorious fact that many branches of the Government organized by the Civil Commission are rotten and corrupt. The fiscal system, upon which life, liberty, and justice depends, is admitted by the Attorney-General himself to be most unsatisfactory. It is a fact that the Philippine judiciary is far from being what it should. Neither fiscals nor judges can be persuaded to convict insurgents when they wish to protect them.xxx xxx xxxNow we hear all sorts of reports as to rottenness existing in the province [of Tayabas], and especially the northern end of it; it is said that it is impossible to secure the conviction of lawbreakers and outlaws by the native justices, or a prosecution by the native fiscals.xxx xxx xxxThe long and short of it is that Americans will not stand for an arbitrary government, especially when evidences of carpetbagging and rumors of graft are too thick to be pleasant.We do not understand that it is claimed that the defendants succeeded in establishing at the trial the truth of any of the foregoing statements. The only question which we have considered is whether their publication constitutes an offense under section 8 of Act No. 292, above cited.Several allied offenses or modes of committing the same offense are defined in that section,viz: (1) The uttering of seditious words or speeches; (2) the writing, publishing, or circulating of scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands; (3) the writing, publishing, or circulating of libels which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office; (4) or which tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes; (5) or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots; (6) or which tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government; (7) knowingly concealing such evil practices.The complaint appears to be framed upon the theory that a writing, in order to be punishable as a libel under this section, must be of a scurrilous nature and directed against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, and must, in addition, tend to some one of the results enumerated in the section. The article in question is described in the complaint as "a scurrilous libel against the Government of the United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, which tends to obstruct the lawful officers of the United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands in the execution of their offices, and which tends to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, and which suggests and incites rebellious conspiracies, and which tends to stir up the people against the lawful authorities, and which disturbs the safety and order of the Government of the United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands." But it is "a well-settled rule in considering indictments that where an offense may be committed in any of several different modes, and the offense, in any particular instance, is alleged to have been committed in two or more modes specified, it is sufficient to prove the offense committed in any one of them, provided that it be such as to constitute the substantive offense" (Com.vs.Kneeland, 20 Pick., Mass., 206, 215), and the defendants may, therefore, be convicted if any one of the substantive charges into which the complaint may be separated has been made out.We are all, however, agreed upon the proposition that the article in question has no appreciable tendency to "disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office," or to "instigate" any person or class of persons "to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes," or to "suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots," or to "stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government." All these various tendencies, which are described in section 8 of Act No. 292, each one of which is made an element of a certain form of libel, may be characterized in general terms as seditious tendencies. This is recognized in the description of the offenses punished by this section, which is found in the title of the act, where they are defined as the crimes of the "seditious utterances, whether written or spoken."Excluding from consideration the offense of publishing "scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands," which may conceivably stand on a somewhat different footing, the offenses punished by this section all consist in inciting, orally or in writing, to acts of disloyalty or disobedience to the lawfully constituted authorities in these Islands. And while the article in question, which is, in the main, a virulent attack against the policy of the Civil Commission in appointing natives to office, may have had the effect of exciting among certain classes dissatisfaction with the Commission and its measures, we are unable to discover anything in it which can be regarded as having a tendency to produce anything like what may be called disaffection, or, in other words, a state of feeling incompatible with a disposition to remain loyal to the Government and obedient to the laws. There can be no conviction, therefore, for any of the offenses described in the section on which the complaint is based, unless it is for the offense of publishing a scurrilous libel against the Government of the of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands.Can the article be regarded as embraced within the description of "scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands?" In the determination of this question we have encountered great difficulty, by reason of the almost entire lack of American precedents which might serve as a guide in the construction of the law. There are, indeed, numerous English decisions, most of them of the eighteenth century, on the subject of libelous attacks upon the "Government, the constitution, or the law generally," attacks upon the Houses of Parliament, the Cabinet, the Established Church, and other governmental organisms, but these decisions are not now accessible to us, and, if they were, they were made under such different conditions from those which prevail at the present day, and are founded upon theories of government so foreign to those which have inspired the legislation of which the enactment in question forms a part, that they would probably afford but little light in the present inquiry. In England, in the latter part of the eighteenth century, any "written censure upon public men for their conduct as such," as well as any written censure "upon the laws or upon the institutions of the country," would probably have been regarded as a libel upon the Government. (2 Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, 348.) This has ceased to be the law in England, and it is doubtful whether it was ever the common law of any American State. "It is true that there are ancient dicta to the effect that any publication tending to "possess the people with an ill opinion of the Government" is a seditious libel ( per Holt, C. J., in R.vs.Tuchin, 1704, 5 St. Tr., 532, and Ellenborough, C. J., in R.vs.Cobbett, 1804, 29 How. St. Tr., 49), but no one would accept that doctrine now. Unless the words used directly tend to foment riot or rebellion or otherwise to disturb the peace and tranquility of the Kingdom, the utmost latitude is allowed in the discussion of all public affairs." (11 Enc. of the Laws of England, 450.) Judge Cooley says (Const. Lim., 528): "The English common law rule which made libels on the constitution or the government indictable, as it was administered by the courts, seems to us unsuited to the condition and circumstances of the people of America, and therefore never to have been adopted in the several States."We find no decisions construing the Tennessee statute (Code, sec. 6663), which is apparently the only existing American statute of a similar character to that in question, and from which much of the phraseology of then latter appears to have been taken, though with some essential modifications.The important question is to determine what is meant in section 8 of Act No. 292 by the expression "the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands." Does it mean in a general and abstract sense the existing laws and institutions of the Islands, or does it mean the aggregate of the individuals by whom the government of the Islands is, for the time being, administered? Either sense would doubtless be admissible.We understand, in modern political science, . . . by the termgovernment, that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society makes and carries out those rules of action which are unnecessary to enable men to live in a social state, or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by those who possess the power or authority of prescribing them. Government is the aggregate of authorities which rule a society. By "dministration, again, we understand in modern times, and especially in more or less free countries, the aggregate of those persons in whose hands the reins of government are for the time being (the chief ministers or heads of departments)." (Bouvier, Law Dictionary, 891.) But the writer adds that the terms "government" and "administration" are not always used in their strictness, and that "government" is often used for "administration."In the act of Congress of July 14, 1798, commonly known as the "Sedition Act," it is made an offense to "write, print, utter, or published," or to "knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous, and malicious writing or writings against the Government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said Government, or either House of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against them or either or any of them the hatred of the good people of the United States," etc. The term "government" would appear to be used here in the abstract sense of the existing political system, as distinguished from the concrete organisms of the Government the Houses of Congress and the Executive which are also specially mentioned.Upon the whole, we are of the opinion that this is the sense in which the term is used in the enactment under consideration.It may be said that there can be no such thing as a scurrilous libel, or any sort of a libel, upon an abstraction like the Government in the sense of the laws and institutions of a country, but we think an answer to this suggestion is that the expression "scurrilous libel" is not used in section 8 of Act No. 292 in the sense in which it is used in the general libel law (Act No. 277) that is, in the sense of written defamation of individuals but in the wider sense, in which it is applied in the common law to blasphemous, obscene, or seditious publications in which there may be no element of defamation whatever. "The word 'libel' as popularly used, seems to mean only defamatory words; but words written, if obscene, blasphemous, or seditious, are technically called libels, and the publication of them is, by the law of England, an indictable offense." (Bradlaughvs.The Queen, 3 Q. B. D., 607, 627, per Bramwell L. J. See Com.vs.Kneeland, 20 Pick., 206, 211.)While libels upon forms of government, unconnected with defamation of individuals, must in the nature of things be of uncommon occurrence, the offense is by no means an imaginary one. An instance of a prosecution for an offense essentially of this nature is Republicavs.Dennie, 4 Yeates (Pa.), 267, where the defendant was indicted "as a factious and seditious person of a wicked mind and unquiet and turbulent disposition and conversation, seditiously, maliciously, and willfully intending, as much as in him lay, to bring into contempt and hatred the independence of the United States, the constitution of this Commonwealth and of the United States, to excite popular discontent and dissatisfaction against the scheme of polity instituted, and upon trial in the said United States and in the said Commonwealth, to molest, disturb, and destroy the peace and tranquility of the said United States and of the said Commonwealth, to condemn the principles of the Revolution, and revile, depreciate, and scandalize the characters of the Revolutionary patriots and statesmen, to endanger, subvert, and totally destroy the republican constitutions and free governments of the said United States and this Commonwealth, to involve the said United States and this Commonwealth in civil war, desolation, and anarchy, and to procure by art and force a radical change and alteration in the principles and forms of the said constitutions and governments, without the free will, wish, and concurrence of the people of the said United States and this Commonwealth, respectively," the charge being that "to fulfill, perfect, and bring to effect his wicked, seditious, and detestable intentions aforesaid he . . . falsely, maliciously, factiously, and seditiously did make, compose, write, and publish the following libel, to wit; 'A democracy is scarcely tolerable at any period of national history. Its omens are always sinister and its powers are unpropitious. With all the lights or experience blazing before our eyes, it is impossible not to discover the futility of this form of government. It was weak and wicked at Athens, it was bad in Sparta, and worse in Rome. It has been tried in France and terminated in despotism. it was tried in England and rejected with the utmost loathing and abhorrence. It is on its trial here and its issue will be civil war, desolation, and anarchy. No wise man but discerns its imperfections; no good man but shudders at its miseries; no honest man but proclaims its fraud, and no brave man but draws his sword against its force. The institution of a scheme of polity so radically contemptible and vicious is a memorable example of what the villainy of some men can devise, the folly of others receive, and both establish, in despite of reason, reflection, and sensation.'"An attack upon the lawfully established system of civil government in the Philippine Islands, like that which Dennie was accused of making upon the republican form of government lawfully established in the United States and in the State of Pennsylvania would, we think, if couched in scandalous language, constitute the precise offense described in section 8 of Act No. 292 as a scurrilous libel against the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands.Defamation of individuals, whether holding official positions or not, and whether directed to their public conduct or to their private life, may always be adequately punished under the general libel law. Defamation of the Civil Commission as an aggregation, it being "a body of persons definite and small enough for its individual members to be recognized as such" (Stephen, Digest of the Criminal Law, art. 277), as well as defamation of any of the individual members of the Commission or of the Civil Governor, either in his public capacity or as a private individual, may be so punished. The general libel law enacted by the Commission was in force when Act No. 292, was passed. There was no occasion for any further legislation on the subject of libels against the individuals by whom the Insular Government is administered against the Insular Government in the sense of the aggregate of such individuals. There was occasion for stringent legislation against seditious words or libels, and that is the main if not the sole purpose of the section under consideration. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the Commission, in enacting this section, may have conceived of attacks of a malignant or scurrilous nature upon the existing political system of the United States, or the political system established in these Islands by the authority of the United States, as necessarily of a seditious tendency, but it is not so reasonable to suppose that they conceived of attacks upon the personnel of the government as necessarily tending to sedition. Had this been their view it seems probable that they would, like the framers of the Sedition Act of 1798, have expressly and specifically mentioned the various public officials and collegiate governmental bodies defamation of which they meant to punish as sedition.The article in question contains no attack upon the governmental system of the United States, and it is quite apparent that, though grossly abusive as respects both the Commission as a body and some of its individual members, it contains no attack upon the governmental system by which the authority of the United States is enforced in these Islands. The form of government by a Civil Commission and a Civil Governor is not assailed. It is the character of the men who are intrusted with the administration of the government that the writer is seeking to bring into disrepute by impugning the purity of their motives, their public integrity, and their private morals, and the wisdom of their policy. The publication of the article, therefore, no seditious tendency being apparent, constitutes no offense under Act No. 292, section 8.The judgment of conviction is reversed and the defendants are acquitted, with costsde oficio.SCRA1.CRIMINAL LAW; SEDITION; GOVERNMENT DEFINED.The term "government" as employed in Act No. 292 of the United States Philippine Commission is used in the abstract sense of the existing political system as distinguished from the concrete organism of the Government. [United States vs. Dorr, 2 Phil. 332(1903)]The publication of an article abusive of the United States Philippine Commission and its members is not a libel upon the Government and does not fall within said Act No. 292 of the United States Philippine Commission. [United States vs. Dorr, 2 Phil. 332(1903)]G.R. No. 103982 December 11, 1992ANTONIO A. MECANO,petitioner,vs.COMMISSION ON AUDIT,respondent.CAMPOS, JR.,J.:Antonio A. Mecano, through a petition forcertiorari,seeks to nullify the decision of the Commission on Audit (COA, for brevity) embodied in its 7th Indorsement, dated January 16, 1992, denying his claim for reimbursement under Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code (RAC), as amended, in the total amount of P40,831.00.Petitioner is a Director II of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). He was hospitalized for cholecystitis from March 26, 1990 to April 7, 1990, on account of which he incurred medical and hospitalization expenses, the total amount of which he is claiming from the COA.On May 11, 1990, in a memorandum to the NBI Director, Alfredo S. Lim (Director Lim, for brevity), he requested reimbursement for his expenses on the ground that he is entitled to the benefits under Section 6991of the RAC, the pertinent provisions of which read:Sec. 699. Allowances in case of injury, death, or sickness incurred in performance of duty. When a person in the service of the national government of a province, city, municipality or municipal district is so injured in the performance of duty as thereby to receive some actual physical hurt or wound, the proper Head of Department may direct that absence during any period of disability thereby occasioned shall be on full pay, though not more than six months, and in such case he may in his discretion also authorize the payment of the medical attendance, necessary transportation, subsistence and hospital fees of the injured person. Absence in the case contemplated shall be charged first against vacation leave, if any there be.xxx xxx xxxIn case of sickness caused by or connected directly with the performance of some act in the line of duty, the Department head may in his discretion authorize the payment of the necessary hospital fees.Director Lim then forwarded petitioner's claim, in a 1st Indorsement dated June 22, 1990, to the Secretary of Justice, along with the comment, bearing the same date, of Gerarda Galang, Chief, LED of the NBI, "recommending favorable action thereof". Finding petitioner's illness to be service-connected, the Committee on Physical Examination of the Department of Justice favorably recommended the payment of petitioner's claim.However, then Undersecretary of Justice Silvestre H. Bello III, in a 4th Indorsement dated November 21, 1990, returned petitioner's claim to Director Lim, having considered the statements of the Chairman of the COA in its 5th Indorsement dated 19 September 1990, to the effect that the RAC being relied upon was repealed by the Administrative Code of 1987.Petitioner then re-submitted his claim to Director Lim, with a copy of Opinion No. 73, S. 19912dated April 26, 1991 of then Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon (Secretary Drilon, for brevity) stating that "the issuance of the Administrative Code did not operate to repeal or abregate in its entirety the Revised Administrative Code, including the particular Section 699 of the latter".On May 10, 1991, Director Lim, under a 5th Indorsement transmitted anew Mecano's claim to then Undersecretary Bello for favorable consideration. Under a 6th Indorsement, dated July 2, 1991, Secretary Drilon forwarded petitioner's claim to the COA Chairman, recommending payment of the same. COA Chairman Eufemio C. Domingo, in his 7th Indorsement of January 16, 1992, however, denied petitioner's claim on the ground that Section 699 of the RAC had been repealed by the Administrative Code of 1987, solely for the reason that the same section was not restated nor re-enacted in the Administrative Code of 1987. He commented, however, that the claim may be filed with the Employees' Compensation Commission, considering that the illness of Director Mecano occurred after the effectivity of the Administrative Code of 1987.Eventually, petitioner's claim was returned by Undersecretary of Justice Eduardo Montenegro to Director Lim under a 9th Indorsement dated February 7, 1992, with the advice that petitioner "elevate the matter to the Supreme Court if he so desires".On the sole issue of whether or not the Administrative Code of 1987 repealed or abrogated Section 699 of the RAC, this petition was brought for the consideration of this Court.Petitioner anchors his claim on Section 699 of the RAC, as amended, and on the aforementioned Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 of Secretary Drilon. He further maintains that in the event that a claim is filed with the Employees' Compensation Commission, as suggested by respondent, he would still not be barred from filing a claim under the subject section. Thus, the resolution of whether or not there was a repeal of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 would decide the fate of petitioner's claim for reimbursement.The COA, on the other hand, strongly maintains that the enactment of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Exec. Order No. 292) operated to revoke or supplant in its entirety the Revised Administrative Code of 1917. The COA claims that from the "whereas" clauses of the new Administrative Code, it can be gleaned that it was the intent of the legislature to repeal the old Code. Moreover, the COA questions the applicability of the aforesaid opinion of the Secretary of Justice in deciding the matter. Lastly, the COA contends that employment-related sickness, injury or death is adequately covered by the Employees' Compensation Program under P.D. 626, such that to allow simultaneous recovery of benefits under both laws on account of the same contingency would be unfair and unjust to the Government.The question of whether a particular law has been repealed or not by a subsequent law is a matter of legislative intent. The lawmakers may expressly repeal a law by incorporating therein a repealing provision which expressly and specifically cites the particular law or laws, and portions thereof, that are intended to be repealed.3A declaration in a statute, usually in its repealing clause, that a particular and specific law, identified by its number or title, is repealed is an express repeal; all others are implied repeals.4In the case of the two Administrative Codes in question, the ascertainment of whether or not it was the intent of the legislature to supplant the old Code with the new Code partly depends on the scrutiny of the repealing clause of the new Code. This provision is found in Section 27, Book VII (Final Provisions) of the Administrative Code of 1987 which reads:Sec. 27. Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, or portions thereof, inconsistent with this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.The question that should be asked is: What is the nature of this repealing clause? It is certainly not an express repealing clause because it fails to identify or designate the act or acts that are intended to be repealed.5Rather, it is an example of a general repealing provision, as stated in Opinion No. 73, S. 1991. It is a clause which predicates the intended repeal under the condition that substantial conflict must be found in existing and prior acts. The failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal any existing law, unless an irreconcilable inconcistency and repugnancy exist in the terms of the new and old laws.6This latter situation falls under the category of an implied repeal.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.7Hence, 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;8otherwise, 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.9There are two categories of repeal by implication. The first is where provisions in the two acts on the same subject matter are in an irreconcilable conflict, the later act to the extent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one. The second is if the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it will operate to repeal the earlier law.10Implied repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency takes place when the two statutes cover the same subject matter; they are so clearly inconsistent and incompatible with each other that they cannot be reconciled or harmonized; and both cannot be given effect, that is, that one law cannot be enforced without nullifying the other.11Comparing the two Codes, it is apparent that the new Code does not cover nor attempt to cover the entire subject matter of the old Code. There are several matters treated in the old Code which are not found in the new Code, such as the provisions on notaries public, the leave law, the public bonding law, military reservations, claims for sickness benefits under Section 699, and still others.Moreover, the COA failed to demonstrate that the provisions of the two Codes on the matter of the subject claim are in an irreconcilable conflict. In fact, there can be no such conflict because the provision on sickness benefits of the nature being claimed by petitioner has not been restated in the Administrative Code of 1987. However, the COA would have Us consider that the fact that Section 699 was not restated in the Administrative Code of 1987 meant that the same section had been repealed. It further maintained that to allow the particular provisions not restated in the new Code to continue in force argues against the Code itself. The COA anchored this argument on the whereas clause of the 1987 Code, which states:WHEREAS, the effectiveness of the Government will be enhanced by a new Administrative Code which incorporate in aunified documentthe major structural, functional and procedural principles and rules of governance; andxxx xxx xxxIt argues, in effect, that what is contemplated is only one Code the Administrative Code of 1987. This contention is untenable.The fact that a later enactment may relate to the same subject matter as that of an earlier statute is not of itself sufficient to cause an implied repeal of the prior act, since the new statute may merely be cumulative or a continuation of the old one.12What is necessary is a manifest indication of legislative purpose to repeal.13We come now to the second category of repeal the enactment of a statute revising or codifying the former laws on the whole subject matter. This is only possible if the revised statute or code was intended to cover the whole subject to be a complete and perfect system in itself. It is the rule that a subsequent statute is deemed to repeal a prior law if the former revises the whole subject matter of the former statute.14When both intent and scope clearly evidence the idea of a repeal, then all parts and provisions of the prior act that are omitted from the revised act are deemed repealed.15Furthermore, before there can be an implied repeal under this category, it must be the clear intent of the legislature that the later act be the substitute to the prior act.16According to Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 of the Secretary of Justice, what appears clear is the intent to cover only those aspects of government that pertain to administration, organization and procedure, understandably because of the many changes that transpired in the government structure since the enactment of the RAC decades of years ago. The COA challenges the weight that this opinion carries in the determination of this controversy inasmuch as the body which had been entrusted with the implementation of this particular provision has already rendered its decision. The COA relied on the rule in administrative law enunciated in the case ofSison vs.Pangramuyen17that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion, the Court would be loathe to substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency entrusted with the enforcement and implementation of the law. This will not hold water. This principle is subject to limitations. Administrative decisions may be reviewed by the courts upon a showing that the decision is vitiated by fraud, imposition or mistake.18It has been held that Opinions of the Secretary and Undersecretary of Justice are material in the construction of statutesin pari materia.19Lastly, it is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that repeals of statutes by implication are not favored.20The 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.21This Court, in a case, explains the principle in detail as follows: "Repeals by implication are not favored, and will not be decreed unless it is manifest that the legislature so intended. As laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation with full knowledge of all existing ones on the subject, it is but reasonable to conclude that in passing a statute it was not intended to interfere with or abrogate any former law relating to some matter, unless the repugnancy between the two is not only irreconcilable, but also clear and convincing, and flowing necessarily from the language used, unless the later act fully embraces the subject matter of the earlier, or unless the reason for the earlier act is beyond peradventure renewed. Hence, every effort must be used to make all acts stand and if, by any reasonable construction, they can be reconciled, the later act will not operate as a repeal of the earlier.22Regarding respondent's contention that recovery under this subject section shall bar the recovery of benefits under the Employees' Compensation Program, the same cannot be upheld. The second sentence of Article 173, Chapter II, Title II (dealing on Employees' Compensation and State Insurance Fund), Book IV of the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. 1921, expressly provides that "the payment of compensation under this Title shall not bar the recovery of benefits as provided for in Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code . . . whose benefits are administered by the system (meaning SSS or GSIS) or by other agencies of the government."WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to GRANT the petition; respondent is hereby ordered to give due course to petitioner's claim for benefits. No costs.SO ORDERED.DigestMecano vs. COA, 216 SCRA 500 (1992)

FACTS:

Mecano, an NBI Director, was hospitalized for cholecystitis, for which he incurred medical and hospitalization expenses, the total amount of which he is claiming from the COA, based on sec. 699 of the RAC. COA contended that the RAC has been repealed by the Administrative Code of 1987, specifically sec. 699 was not restated nor re-enacted in the Code.

ISSUE:

W/N the Administrative Code of 1987 repealed or abrogated sec. 699 of the RAC

HELD:

The question of whether or not a particular law has been repealed or not by a subsequent law is a matter of legislative intent. The lawmakers may expressly repeal a law by incorporating therein a repealing provision which expressly and specifically cites the particular law or laws, and portions thereof, that are intended to be repealed. A declaration in a statute, usually in its repealing clause, that a particular and specific law, identified by its number or title, is repealed is an express repeal; all others are implied repeals.

Under sec. 27, Bk. VII (Final Provisions) of the Administrative Code of 1987, the repealing clause states that all laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, or portions thereof, inconsistent with this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

The question that should be asked is: What is the nature of this repealing clause? It is certainly not an express repealing clause because it fails to identify or designate the act or acts that are intended to be repealed. Rather, it is an example of a general repealing provision. It is a clause which predicates the intended repeal under the condition that a substantial conflict must be found in existing and prior acts. The failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates the intent was not to repeal any existing law, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exist in the terms of the new and old laws. The latter situation falls under the category of an implied repeal.

(NOTA BENE: This means that the RAC, despite the passage of the Administrative Code of 1987, may still be a source of administrative law)SCRAStatutes; Administrative Code of 1987; Implied repeal.In the case of the two Administrative Codes in question, the ascertainment of whether or not it was the intent of the legislature to supplant the old Code with the new Code partly depends on the scrutiny of the repealing clause of the new Code. This provision is found in Section 27, Book VII (Final Provisions) of the Administrative Code of 1987 which reads: Sec. 27. Repealing Clause.All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, or portions thereof, inconsistent with this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. The question that should be asked is: What is the nature of this repealing clause? It is certainly not an express repealing clause because it fails to identify or designate the act or acts that are intended to be repealed. Rather, it is an example of a general repealing provision, as stated in Opinion No. 73, S. 1991. It is a clause which predicates the intended repeal under the condition that a substantial conflict must be found in existing and prior acts. The failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal any existing law, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exist in the terms of the new and old laws. This latter situation falls under the category of an implied repeal.Same; Same; Same.There are two categories of repeal by implication. The first is where provisions in the two acts on the same subject matter are in an irreconcilable conflict, the later act to the extent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one. The second is if the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it will operate to repeal the earlier law. Implied repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency takes place when the two statutes cover the same subject matter; they are so clearly inconsistent and incompatible with each other that they cannot be reconciled or harmonized; and both cannot be given effect, that is, that one law cannot be enforced without nullifying the other. Comparing the two Codes, it is apparent that the new Code does not cover nor attempt to cover the entire subject matter of the old Code. There are several matters treated in the old Code which are not found [Mecano vs. Commission on Audit, 216 SCRA 500(1992)]in the new Code, such as the provisions on notaries public, the leave law, the public bonding law, military reservations, claims for sickness benefits under Section 699, and still others.Same; Same; Same.Lastly, 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. This Court, in a case, explains the principle in detail as follows: Repeals by implication are not favored, and will not be decreed unless it is manifest that the legislature so intended. As laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation with full knowledge of all existing ones on the subject, it is but reasonable to conclude that in passing a statute it was not intended to interfere with or abrogate any former law relating to some matter, unless the repugnancy between the two is not only irreconcilable, but also clear and convincing, and flowing necessarily from the language used, unless the later act fully embraces the subject matter of the earlier, or unless the reason for the earlier act is beyond peradventure renewed. Hence, every effort must be used to make all acts stand and if, by any reasonable construction, they can be reconciled, the later act will not operate as a repeal of the earlier. [Mecano vs. Commission on Audit, 216 SCRA 500(1992)]G.R. No. L-66614 January 25, 1988PRIMITIVO LEVERIZA, FE LEVERIZA, PARUNGAO & ANTONIO C. VASCO,petitioners,vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, MOBIL OIL PHILIPPINES & CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION,respondents.BIDIN,J.:This is a Petition for Review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court, Third Division*dated February 29, 1984 in AC-G.R. No. CV No. 61705 entitledMobil Oil Philippines, Inc., plaintiff-appelleevs. Primitivo Leveriza Parungao, Antonio C. Vasco and Civil Aeronautics Administration, defendants-appellants; Primitive Leveriza, Fe Leveriza Parungao and Antonio C. Leveriza, cross-defendant, affirmingin totothe decision of the trial court dated April 6, 1976.As found by the trial court and adopted by the Intermediate Appellate Court, the facts of this case are as follows:Around three contracts of lease resolve the basic issues in the instant case. These three contracts are as follows:First Contract. For purposes of easy reference and brevity, this contract shall be referred to hereinafter as Contract A. This is a "CONTRACT OF LEASE", executed between the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by Defendant CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION, as lessor, and ROSARIO C. LEVERIZA, as lessee, on April 2, 1965, over a certain parcel of land at the MIA area, consisting of approximately 4,502 square meters, at a monthly rental of P450.20, for a period of 25 years, (Exhibit "A", Exhibit "I-Leverizas", Exhibit "I-CAA").Second Contracts. For purposes of easy references and brevity, this contract shall be referred to hereinafter as Contract B. This is a "LEASE AGREEMENT", executed between ROSARIO C. LEVERIZA, as lessor, and Plaintiff MOBIL OIL PHILIPPINES, INC., as lessee on May 21, 1965, over 3,000 square meters of that SAME Parcel of land subject of Contract A above mentioned, at a monthly rental of P1,500.00, for a period of 25 years (Exhibit 'B', Exhibit 4-Leverizas' ).Third Contract. For purposes of easy reference and brevity, this contract shall be referred to hereinafter as Contract C. This is a "LEASE AGREEMENT", executed between Defendant CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION, as lessor, and plaintiff MOBIL OIL PHILIPPINES, INC., as lessee, on June 1, 1968 over that SAME parcel of land (Lot A, on plan being a portion of Parcel, Psu 2031), containing an area of 3,000 square meters more or less, at a monthly rental of P.25 per square meter for the second 200 square meters, and P.20 per square meter for the rest, for a period of 29 (sic) years. (Exhibit "C").There is no dispute among the parties that the subject matter of the three contracts of lease above mentioned, Contract A, Contract B, and Contract C, is the same parcel of land, with the noted difference that while in Contract A, the area leased is 4,502 square meters, in Contract B and Contract C, the area has been reduced to 3,000 square meters. To summarize:Contract A a lease contract of April 2, 1965 between the Republic of the Philippines, represented by Defendant Civil Aeronautics Administration and Rosario C. Leveriza over a parcel of land containing an area of 4,502 square meters, for 25 years.Contract B a lease contract (in effect a sublease) of May 21, 1965 between defendant Rosario C. Leveriza and plaintiff Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc. over the same parcel of land, but reduced to 3,000 square meters for 25 years; andContract C a lease contract of June 1, 1968 between defendant Civil Aeronautics Administration and plaintiff Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc., over the same parcel of land, but reduced to 3,000 square meters, for 25 years.It is important to note, for a clear understanding of the issues involved, that it appears that defendant Civil Aeronautics Administration as LESSOR, leased the same parcel of land, for durations of time that overlapped to two lessees, to wit: (1) Defendant Rosario C. Leveriza, and that plaintiff Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc., as LESSEE, leased the same parcel of land from two lessors, to wit: (1) defendant Rosario C. Leveriza and (2) defendant Civil Aeronautics Administration, Inc., for durations of time that also overlapped.For purposes of brevity defendant Civil Aeronautics Administration shall be referred to hereinafter as defendant CAA.Rosario C. Leveriza, the lessee in Contract A and the lessor in Contract B, is now deceased. This is the reason why her successor-in-interest, her heirs, are sued, namely: Defendants Primitive Leveriza, her second husband, (now also deceased), Fe Leveriza Parungao, her daughter by her second husband, and Antonio C. Vasco, her son by her first husband. For purposes of brevity, these defendants shall be referred to hereinafter as Defendants Leveriza.Plaintiff Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc., shall be referred to hereinafter simply as the Plaintiff. (pp. 95-99, Record on Appeal).Plaintiff in this case seeks the rescission or cancellation of Contract A and Contract B on the ground that Contract A from which Contract B is derived and depends has already been cancelled by the defendant Civil Aeronautics Administration and maintains that Contract C with the defendant CAA is the only valid and subsisting contract insofar as the parcel of land, subject to the present litigation is concerned. On the other hand, defendants Leverizas' claim that Contract A which is their contract with CAA has never been legally cancelled and still valid and subsisting; that it is Contract C between plaintiff and defendant CAA which should be declared void.Defendant CAA asserts that Exhibit "A" is still valid and subsisting because its cancellation by Guillermo Jurado was ineffective and asks the court to annul Contract A because of the violation committed by defendant Leveriza in leasing the parcel of land to plaintiff by virtue of Contract B without the consent of defendant CAA. Defendant CAA further asserts that Contract C not having been approved by the Director of Public Works and Communications is not valid. ...xxx xxx xxxAfter trial, the lower court render judgment on April 6, 1976 the dispositive part of which reads:WHEREFORE, after having thus considered the evidence of all the parties, testimonial and documentary, and their memoranda and reply-memoranda, this Court hereby renders judgment:1. Declaring Contract A as having been validly cancelled on June 28, 1966, and has therefore ceased to have any effect as of that date;2. Declaring that Contract B has likewise ceased to have any effect as of June 28, 1966 because of the cancellation of Contract A;3. Declaring that Contract C was validly entered into on June 1, 1968, and that it is still valid and subsisting;4. Ordering defendant CAA to refund to defendants Leverizas the amount of P32,189.30 with 6% per annum until fully paid;5. Ordering defendants Leverizas to refund to plaintiff the amount of P48,000.00 with 6% interest per annum until fully paid;6. Dismissing defendants Leverizas' four counterclaims against plaintiff;7. Dismissing defendants Leverizas' cross-claim against defendant CAA;8. Dismissing defendant CAA's counterclaim against plaintiff;9. Dismissing defendant CAA's counterclaim against defendant Leverizas.No pronouncements as to costs.On June 2, 1976, defendant Leveriza filed a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, lack of jurisdiction of the court over the case and lack of evidentiary support of the decision which was denied in the order of November 12,1976 (Rollo, p. 17).On July 27, 1976, the CAA filed a Motion for Reconsideration, averring that because the lot lease was properly registered in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, it was only the President of the Philippines or an officer duly designated by him who could execute the lease contract pursuant to Sec. 567 of the Revised Administrative Code; that the Airport General Manager has no authority to cancel Contract A, the contract entered into between the CAA and Leveriza, and that Contract C between the CAA and Mobil was void for not having been approved by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications. Said motion was however denied on November 12, 1976 (Rollo, p. 18).On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court, being in full accord with the trial court, rendered a decision on February 29, 1984, the dispositive part of which reads:WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision of the lower court dated April 6, 1976, the same is hereby affirmed intoto.Hence, this petition.The petitioners raised the following assignment of errors:ITHE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION (CAA) HAD THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO LEASE, EVEN WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE THEN SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, REAL PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.IITHE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION HAD STATUTORY AUTHORITY, WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE THEN SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, TO CANCEL A LEASE CONTRACT OVER REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, WHICH CONTRACT WAS APPROVED, AS REQUIRED BY LAW, BY THE SECRETARY.IIITHE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE CONTRACT OF SUBLEASE (CONTRACT B) ENTERED INTO BETWEEN PETITIONERS' PREDECESSOR-IN-INTEREST AND RESPONDENT MOBIL OIL PHILIPPINES, INC. WAS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION.The petition is devoid of merit.There is no dispute that Contract "A" at the time of its execution was a valid contract. The issue therefore is whether or not said contract is still subsisting after its cancellation by CAA on the ground of a sublease executed by petitioners with Mobil Oil Philippines without the consent of CAA and the execution of another contract of lease between CAA and Mobil Oil Philippines (Contract "C").Petitioners contend that Contract "A" is still subsisting because Contract "B" is a valid sublease and does not constitute a ground for the cancellation of Contract "A", while Contract "C", a subsequent lease agreement between CAA and Mobil Oil Philippines is null and void, for lack of approval by the Department Secretary. Petitioners anchor their position on Sections 567 and 568 of the Revised Administrative Code which require among others, that subject contracts should be executed by the President of the Philippines or by an officer duly designated by him, unless authority to execute the same is by law vested in some other officer (Petition, Rollo, pp. 15-16).At the other extreme, respondent Mobil Oil Philippines asserts that Contract "A" was validly cancelled on June 28, 1966 and so was Contract "B" which was derived therefrom. Accordingly, it maintains that Contract "C" is the only valid contract insofar as the parcel of land in question is concerned and that approval of the Department Head is not necessary under Section 32 (par. 24) of the Republic Act 776 which expressly vested authority to enter into such contracts in the Administrator of CAA (Comment; Rollo, p. 83).On its part, respondent Civil Aeronautics Administration took the middle ground with its view that Contract "A" is still subsisting as its cancellation is ineffective without the approval of the Department Head but said contract is not enforceable because of petitioners' violation of its terms and conditions by entering into Contract "B" of sublease without the consent of CAA. The CAA further asserts that Contract "C" not having been approved by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, is not valid (Rollo, p. 43). However, in its comment filed with the Supreme Court, the CAA made a complete turnabout adopting the interpretation and ruling made by the trial court which was affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court (Court of Appeals), that the CAA Administrator has the power to execute the deed or contract of lease involving real properties under its administration belonging to the Republic of the Philippines without the approval of the Department Head as clearly provided in Section 32, paragraph (24) of Republic Act 776.The issue narrows down to whether or not there is a valid ground for the cancellation of Contract "A."Contract "A" was entered into by CAA as the lessor and the Leverizas as the lessee specifically "for the purpose of operating and managing a gasoline station by the latter, to serve vehicles going in and out of the airport."As regards prior consent of the lessor to the transfer of rights to the leased premises, the provision of paragraph 7 of said Contract reads in full:7. The Party of the Second part may transfer her rights to the leased premises but in such eventuality, the consent of the Party of the First Part shall first be secured. In any event, such transfer of rights shall have to respect the terms and conditions of this agreement.Paragraph 8 provides the sanction for the violation of the above-mentioned terms and conditions of the contract. Said paragraph reads:8. Failure on the part of the Party of the Second Part to comply with the terms and conditions herein agreed upon shall be sufficient for revocation of this contract by the Party of the First Part without need of judicial demand.It is not disputed that the Leverizas (lessees) entered into a contract of sublease (Contract "B") with Mobil Oil Philippines without the consent of CAA (lessor). The cancellation of the contract was made in a letter dated June 28, 1966 of Guillermo P. Jurado, Airport General Manager of CAA addressed to Rosario Leveriza, as follows:(Letterhead)June 28, 1966Mrs. Rosario LeverizaManila International AirportMadam:It has been found out by the undersigned that you have sublet the property of the CAA leased to you and by virtue of this, your lease contract is hereby cancelled because of the violation of the stipulations of the contract. I would like to inform you that even without having sublet the said property the said contract would have been cancelled as per attached communication.Very truly yours,For the Director:(Sgd.) Illegible(Typed)GUILLERMO P. JURADOAirport General ManagerRespondent Leverizas and the CAA assailed the validity of such cancellation, claiming that the Airport General Manager had no legal authority to make the cancellation. They maintain that it is only the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, acting for the President, or by delegation of power, the Director of Civil Aeronautics Administration who could validly cancel the contract. They do admit, however, and it is evident from the records that the Airport General Manager signed "For the Director." Under the circumstances, there is no question that such act enjoys the presumption of regularity, not to mention the unassailable fact that such act was subsequently affirmed or ratified by the Director of the CAA himself (Record on Appeal, pp. 108-110).Petitioners argue that cancelling or setting aside a contract approved by the Secretary is, in effect, repealing an act of the Secretary which is beyond the authority of the Administrator.Such argument is untenable. The terms and conditions under which such revocation or cancellation may be made, have already been specifically provided for in Contract "A" which has already been approved by the Department Head, It is evident that in the implementation of aforesaid contract, the approval of said Department Head is no longer necessary if not redundant.It is further contended that even granting that such cancellation was effective, a subsequent billing by the Accounting Department of the CAA has in effect waived or nullified the rescission of Contract "A."It will be recalled that the questioned cancellation of Contract "A" was among others, mainly based on the violation of its terms and conditions, specifically, the sublease of the property by the lessee without the consent of the lessor.The billing of the petitioners by the Accounting Department of the CAA if indeed it transpired, after the cancellation of Contract "A" is obviously an error. However, this Court has already ruled that the mistakes of government personnel should not affect public interest. InSan Mauricio Mining Company v. Ancheta(105 SCRA 391, 422), it has been held that as a matter of law rooted in the protection of public interest, and also as a general policy to protect the government and the people, errors of government personnel in the performance of their duties should never deprive the people of the right to rectify such error and recover what might be lost or be bartered away in any actuation, deal or transaction concerned. In the case at bar, the lower court in its decision which has been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, ordered the CAA to refund to the petitioners the amount of rentals which was not due from them with 6% interest per annum until fully paid.Petitioners further assail the interpretation of Contract "A", claiming that Contract "B" was a mere sublease to respondent Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc. and requires no prior consent of CAA to perfect the same. Citing Article 1650 of the Civil Code, they assert that the prohibition to sublease must be expressed and cannot be merely implied or inferred (Rollo, p. 151).As correctly found by the Court of Appeals, petitioners in asserting the non- necessity for a prior consent interprets the first sentence of paragraph 7 of Contract "A" to refer to an assignment of lease under Article 1649 of the Civil Code and not to a mere sublease. A careful scrutiny of said paragraph of Contract "A" clearly shows that it speaks of transfer of rights of Rosario Leveriza to the leased premises and not to assignment of the lease (Rollo, pp. 48-49).Petitioners likewise argued that it was contemplated by the parties to Contract "A" that Mobil Oil Philippines would be the owner of the gasoline station it would construct on the leased premises during the period of the lease, hence, it is understood that it must be given a right to use and occupy the lot in question in the form of a sub-lease (Rollo, p. 152).In Contract "A", it was categorically stated that it is the lessee (petitioner) who will manage and operate the gasoline station. The fact that Mobil Oil was mentioned in that contract was clearly not intended to give approval to a sublease between petitioners and said company but rather to insure that in the arrangements to be made between them, it must be understood that after the expiration of the lease contract, whatever improvements have been constructed in the leased premises shall be relinquished to CAA. Thus, this Court held that "the primary and elementary rule of construction of documents is that when the words or language thereof is clear and plain or readily understandable by any ordinary reader thereof, there is absolutely no room for interpretation or construction anymore." (San Mauricio Mining Company v. Ancheta,supra).Finally, petitioners contend that the administrator of CAA cannot execute without approval of the Department Secretary, a valid contract of lease over real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines, citing Sections 567 and 568 of the Revised Administrative Code, which provide as follows:SEC. 567.Authority of the President of the Philippines to execute contracts relative to real property. When the Republic of the Philippines is party to a deed conveying the title toreal property or is party to any lease or other contract relating to real property belonging to said government, said deed or contract shall be executed on behalf of said government by the President of the Philippinesor by an officer duly designated by him, unless authority to execute the same is by law expressly vested in some other officer. (Emphasis supplied)SEC. 568.Authority of national officials to make contract. Written contracts not within the purview of the preceding section shall, in the absence of special provision, be executed, with the approval of the proper Department Head, by the Chief of the Bureau or Office having control of the appropriation against which the contract would create a charge; or if there is no such chief, by the proper Department Head himself or the President of the Philippines as the case may require.On the other hand, respondent CAA avers that the CAA Administrator has the authority to lease real property belonging to the Republic of the Philippines under its administration even without the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, which authority is expressly vested in it by law, more particularly Section 32 (24) of Republic Act 776, which reads:Sec. 32.Powers and Duties of the Administrator. Subject to the general control and supervision of the Department Head, the Administrator shall have, among others, the following powers and duties:xxx xxx xxx(24) To administer, operate, manage, control, maintain and develop the Manila International Airport and all government aerodromes except those controlled or operated by the Armed Forces of the Philippines including such power and duties as: ... (b) to enter into, make and execute contracts of any kind with any person, firm, or public or private corporation or entity; (c) to acquire, hold, purchase, or lease any personal or real property; right of ways, and easements which may be proper or necessary: Provided, that no real property thus acquired and any other real property of the Civil Aeronautics Administration shall be sold without the approval of the President of the Philippines. ...There is no dispute that the Revised Administrative Code is a general law while Republic Act 776 is a special law nor in the fact that the real property subject of the lease in Contract "C" is real property belonging to the Republic of the Philippines.Under 567 of the Revised Administrative Code, such contract of lease must be executed: (1) by the President of the Philippines, or (2) by an officer duly designated by him or (3) by an officer expressly vested by law. It is readily apparent that in the case at bar, the Civil Aeronautics Administration has the authority to enter into Contracts of Lease for the government under the third category. Thus, as correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, the Civil Aeronautics Administration has the power to execute the deed or contract involving leases of real properties belonging to the Republic of the Philippines, not because it is an entity duly designated by the President but because the said authority to execute the same is, by law expressly vested in it.Under the above-cited Section 32 (par. 24) of Republic Act 776, the Administrator (Director) of the Civil Aeronautics Administration by reason of its creation and existence, administers properties belonging to the Republic of the Philippines and it is on these properties that the Administrator must exercise his vast power and discharge his duty to enter into, make and execute contract of any kind with any person, firm, or public or private corporation or entity and to acquire, hold, purchase, or lease any personal or real property, right of ways and easements which may be proper or necessary. The exception, however, is the sale of properties acquired by CAA or any other real properties of the same which must have the approval of the President of the Philippines. The Court of appeals took cognizance of the striking absence of such proviso in the other transactions contemplated in paragraph (24) and is convinced as we are, that the Director of the Civil Aeronautics Administration does not need the prior approval of the President or the Secretary of Public Works and Communications in the execution of Contract "C."In this regard, this Court, ruled that another basic principle of statutory construction mandates that general legislation must give way to special legislation on the same subject, and generally be so interpreted as to embrace only cases in which the special provisions are not applicable (Sto. Domingo v. De los Angeles, 96 SCRA 139),. that specific statute prevails over a general statute (De Jesus v. People, 120 SCRA 760) and that where two statutes are of equal theoretical application to a particular case, the one designed therefor specially should prevail (Wil Wilhensen, Inc. v. Baluyot, 83 SCRA 38)WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the decision of the Court of Appeals appealed from is AFFIRMEDin toto.SO ORDERED.DigestLeveriza vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 282 (1988)

FACTS:

This case involves three contracts of lease:

1) Contract A: executed between Civil Aeronautics Administration (lessor) and Rosario Leveriza (lessee)2) Contract B: executed between Leveriza (lessor) and Mobil Oil (lessee)3) Contract C: executed between CAA (lessor) and Mobil Oil (lessee)

When Leveriza subleased the property to Mobil Oil (Contract B) without permission from the lessor, CAA cancelled Contract A and executed Contract C with Mobil Oil. Leveriza contended that Contract C was invalid not only because it was entered into by CAA without approval by the Department Secretary but also because it was not executed by the President of the Philippines or officer duly designated. According to Leveriza, the officer duly designated to cancel the contract is not the Airport General Manager but the Secretary of Public Works and Communication or the Director of the CAA.

ISSUE:

W/N Contract C was validly entered into

HELD:

SC held that the Airport General Manager had authority to enter into contracts of lease. In executing Contract C, the Airport General Manager signed for the Director of the CAA, who subsequently ratified the same.

Under sec. 567 of the RAC, a contract of lease may be executed by: (1) President; (2) officer duly designated by him; and (3) officer expressly vested by law. Under sec. 32 (24) of RA 776, the Director of the CAA is one such officer vested by law.SCRAAdministrative Law; Under 567 of the Revised Administrative Code, the Civil Aeronautics Administration has the authority to enter into Contracts of Lease for the government.Under 567 of the Revised Administrative Code, such contract of lease must be executed: (1) by the President of the Philippines, or (2) by an officer duly designated by him or (3) by an officer expressly vested by law. It is readily apparent that in the case at bar, the Civil Aeronautics Administration has the authority to enter into Contracts of Lease for the government under the third category. Thus, as correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, the Civil Aeronautics Administration has the power to execute the deed or contract involving leases of real properties belonging to the Republic of the Philippines, not because it is an entity duly designated by the President but because the said authority to execute the same is, by law expressly vested in it. [Leveriza vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 157 SCRA 282(1988)]G.R. No. 120319 October 6, 1995LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK,petitioner,vs.ASSOCIATION OF LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK EMPLOYEES and ATTY. ESTER S. GARCIA in her capacity as VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR,respondents.ROMERO,J.:From a submission agreement of the Luzon Development Bank (LDB) and the Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees (ALDBE) arose an arbitration case to resolve the following issue:Whether or not the company has violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement provision and the Memorandum of Agreement dated April 1994, on promotion.At a conference, the parties agreed on the submission of their respective Position Papers on December 1-15, 1994. Atty. Ester S. Garcia, in her capacity as Voluntary Arbitrator, received ALDBE's Position Paper on January 18, 1995. LDB, on the other hand, failed to submit its Position Paper despite a letter from the Voluntary Arbitrator reminding them to do so. As of May 23, 1995 no Position Paper had been filed by LDB.On May 24, 1995, without LDB's Position Paper, the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a decision disposing as follows:WHEREFORE, finding is hereby made that the Bank has not adhered to the Collective Bargaining Agreement provision nor the Memorandum of Agreement on promotion.Hence, this petition forcertiorariand prohibition seeking to set aside the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator and to prohibit her from enforcing the same.In labor law context, arbitration is the reference of a labor dispute to an impartial third person for determination on the basis of evidence and arguments presented by such parties who have bound themselves to accept the decision of the arbitrator as final and binding.Arbitration may be classified, on the basis of the obligation on which it is based, as either compulsory or voluntary.Compulsory arbitration is a system whereby the parties to a dispute are compelled by the government to forego their right to strike and are compelled to accept the resolution of their dispute through arbitration by a third party.1The essence of arbitration remains since a resolution of a dispute is arrived at by resort to a disinterested third party whose decision is final and binding on the parties, but in compulsory arbitration, such a third party is normally appointed by the government.Under voluntary arbitration, on the other hand, referral of a dispute by the parties is made, pursuant to a voluntary arbitration clause in their collective agreement, to an impartial third person for a final and binding resolution.2Ideally, arbitration awards are supposed to be complied with by both parties without delay, such that once an award has been rendered by an arbitrator, nothing is left to be done by both parties but to comply with the same. After all, they are presumed to have freely chosen arbitration as the mode of settlement for that particular dispute. Pursuant thereto, they have chosen a mutually acceptable arbitrator who shall hear and decide their case. Above all, they have mutually agreed to de bound by said arbitrator's decision.In the Philippine context, the parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) are required to include therein provisions for a machinery for the resolution of grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA or company personnel policies.3For this purpose, parties to a CBA shall name and designate therein a voluntary arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators, or include a procedure for their selection, preferably from those accredited by the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). Article 261 of the Labor Code accordingly provides for exclusive original jurisdiction of such voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators over (1) the interpretation or implementation of the CBA and (2) the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies. Article 262 authorizes them, but only upon agreement of the parties, to exercise jurisdiction over other labor disputes.On the other hand, a labor arbiter under Article 217 of the Labor Code has jurisdiction over the following enumerated cases:. . . (a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:1. Unfair labor practice cases;2. Termination disputes;3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment;4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations;5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts;6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims, arising from employer-employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.xxx xxx xxxIt will thus be noted that the jurisdiction conferred by law on a voluntary arbitrator or a panel of such arbitrators is quite limited compared to the original jurisdiction of the labor arbiter and the appellate jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for that matter.4The state of our present law relating to voluntary arbitration provides that "(t)he award or decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator . . . shall be final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the copy of the award or decision by the parties,"5while the "(d)ecision, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders."6Hence, while there is an express mode of appeal from the decision of a labor arbiter, Republic Act No. 6715 is silent with respect to an appeal from the decision of a voluntary arbitrator.Yet, past practice shows that a decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is, more often than not, elevated to the Supreme Court itself on a petition forcertiorari,7in effect equating the voluntary arbitrator with the NLRC or the Court of Appeals. In the view of the Court, this is illogical and imposes an unnecessary burden upon it.InVolkschel Labor Union, et al.v.NLRC, et al.,8on the settled premise that the judgments of courts and awards of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite time, this Court ruled that the awards of voluntary arbitrators determine the rights of parties; hence, their decisions have the same legal effect as judgments of a court. InOceanic Bic Division (FFW),et al.v.Romero,et al.,9this Court ruled that "a voluntary arbitrator by the nature of her functions acts in a quasi-judicial capacity." Under these rulings, it follows that the voluntary arbitrator, whether acting solely or in a panel, enjoys in lawthe status of a quasi-judicial agencybut independent of, and apart from, the NLRC since his decisions are not appealable to the latter.10Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902, provides that the Court of Appeals shall exercise:xxx xxx xxx(B) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.xxx xxx xxxAssumingarguendothat the voluntary arbitrator or the panel of voluntary arbitrators may not strictly be considered as a quasi-judicial agency, board or commission, still both he and the panel are comprehended within the concept of a "quasi-judicial instrumentality." It may even be stated that it was to meet the very situation presented by the quasi-judicial functions of the voluntary arbitrators here, as well as the subsequent arbitrator/arbitral tribunal operating under the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission,11that the broader term "instrumentalities" was purposely included in the above-quoted provision.An "instrumentality" is anything used as a means or agency.12Thus, the terms governmental "agency" or "instrumentality" are synonymous in the sense that either of them is a means by which a government acts, or by which a certain government act or function is performed.13The word "instrumentality," with respect to a state, contemplates an authority to which the state delegates governmental power for the performance of a state function.14An individual person, like an administrator or executor, is a judicial instrumentality in the settling of an estate,15in the same manner that a sub-agent appointed by a bankruptcy court is an instrumentality of the court,16and a trustee in bankruptcy of a defunct corporation is an instrumentality of the state.17The voluntary arbitrator no less performs a state function pursuant to a governmental power delegated to him under the provisions therefor in the Labor Code and he falls, therefore, within the contemplation of the term "instrumentality" in the aforequoted Sec. 9 of B.P. 129. The fact that his functions and powers are provided for in the Labor Code does not place him within the exceptions to said Sec. 9 since he is a quasi-judicial instrumentality as contemplated therein. It will be noted that, although the Employees Compensation Commission is also provided for in the Labor Code, Circular No. 1-91, which is the forerunner of the present Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, laid down the procedure for the appealability of its decisions to the Court of Appeals under the foregoing rationalization, and this was later adopted by Republic Act No. 7902 in amending Sec. 9 of B.P. 129.A fortiori, the decision or award of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators should likewise be appealable to the Court of Appeals, in line with the procedure outlined in Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, just like those of the quasi-judicial agencies, boards and commissions enumerated therein.This would be in furtherance of, and consistent with, the original purpose of Circular No. 1-91 to provide a uniform procedure for the appellate review of adjudications of all quasi-judicial entities18not expressly excepted from the coverage of Sec. 9 of B.P. 129 by either the Constitution or another statute. Nor will it run counter to the legislative intendment that decisions of the NLRC be reviewable directly by the Supreme Court since, precisely, the cases within the adjudicative competence of the voluntary arbitrator are excluded from the jurisdiction of the NLRC or the labor arbiter.In the same vein, it is worth mentioning that under Section 22 of Republic Act No. 876, also known as the Arbitration Law, arbitration is deemed a special proceeding of which the court specified in the contract or submission, or if none be specified, the Regional Trial Court for the province or city in which one of the parties resides or is doing business, or in which the arbitration is held, shall have jurisdiction. A party to the controversy may, at any time within one (1) month after an award is made, apply to the court having jurisdiction for an order confirming the award and the court must grant such order unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected.19In effect, this equates the award or decision of the voluntary arbitrator with that of the regional trial court. Consequently, in a petition forcertiorarifrom that award or decision, the Court of Appeals must be deemed to have concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court. As a matter of policy, this Court shall henceforth remand to the Court of Appeals petitions of this nature for proper disposition.ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to REFER this case to the Court of Appeals.SO ORDERED.SCRASame; Same; Administrative Law; The voluntary arbitrator, whether acting solely or in a panel, enjoys in law the status of a quasijudicial agency but independent of, and apart from, the NLRC since his decisions are not appealable to the latter.In Volkschel Labor Union, et al. v. NLRC, et al., on the settled premise that the judgments of courts and awards of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite time, this Court ruled that the awards of voluntary arbitrators determine the rights of parties; hence, their decisions have the same legal effect as judgments of a court. In Oceanic Bic Division (FFW), et al. v. Romero, et al., this Court ruled that a voluntary arbitrator by the nature of her functions acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. Under these rulings, it follows that the voluntary arbitrator, whether acting solely or in a panel, enjoys in law the status of a quasi-judicial agency but independent of, and apart from, the NLRC since his decisions are not appealable to the latter.Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Governmental Agency or Instrumentality, Explained.An instrumentality is anything used as a means or agency. Thus, the terms governmental agency or instrumentality are synonymous in the sense that either of them is a means by which a government acts, or by which a certain government act or function is performed. The word instrumentality, with respect to a state contemplates an authority to which the state delegates governmental power for the performance of a state function. [Luzon Development Bank vs. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees, 249 SCRA 162(1995)]G.R. No. 102976 October 25, 1995IRON AND STEEL AUTHORITY,petitioner,vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA CRISTINA FERTILIZER CORPORATION,respondents.FELICIANO,J.:Petitioner Iron and Steel Authority ("ISA") was created by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 272 dated 9 August 1973 in order, generally, to develop and promote the iron and steel industry in the Philippines. The objectives of the ISA are spelled out in the following terms:Sec. 2. Objectives The Authority shall have the following objectives:(a) to strengthen the iron and steel industry of the Philippines and to expand the domestic and export markets for the products of the industry;(b) to promote the consolidation, integration and rationalization of the industry in order to increase industry capability and viability to service the domestic market and to compete in international markets;(c) to rationalize the marketing and distribution of steel products in order to achieve a balance between demand and supply of iron and steel products for the country and to ensure that industry prices and profits are at levels that provide a fair balance between the interests of investors, consumers suppliers, and the public at large;(d) to promote full utilization of the existing capacity of the industry, to discourage investment in excess capacity, and in coordination, with appropriate government agencies to encourage capital investment in priority areas of the industry;(e) to assist the industry in securing adequate and low-cost supplies of raw materials and to reduce the excessive dependence of the country on imports of iron and steel.The list of powers and functions of the ISA included the following:Sec. 4. Powers and Functions. The authority shall have the following powers and functions:xxx xxx xxx(j) to initiate expropriation of land required for basic iron and steel facilities for subsequent resale and/or lease to the companies involvedif it is shown that such use of the State's power is necessary to implement the construction of capacity which is needed for the attainment of the objectives of the Authority;xxx xxx xxx(Emphasis supplied)P.D. No. 272 initially created petitioner ISA for a term of five (5) years counting from 9 August 1973.1When ISA's original term expired on 10 October 1978, its term was extended for another ten (10) years by Executive Order No. 555 dated 31 August 1979.The National Steel Corporation ("NSC") then a wholly owned subsidiary of the National Development Corporation which is itself an entity wholly owned by the National Government, embarked on an expansion program embracing, among other things, the construction of an integrated steel mill in Iligan City. The construction of such a steel mill was considered a priority and major industrial project of the Government. Pursuant to the expansion program of the NSC, Proclamation No. 2239 was issued by the President of the Philippines on 16 November 1982 withdrawing from sale or settlement a large tract of public land (totalling about 30.25 hectares in area) located in Iligan City, and reserving that land for the use and immediate occupancy of NSC.Since certain portions of the public land subject matter Proclamation No. 2239 were occupied by a non-operational chemical fertilizer plant and related facilities owned by private respondent Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corporation ("MCFC"), Letter of Instruction (LOI), No. 1277, also dated 16 November 1982, was issued directing the NSC to "negotiate with the owners of MCFC,for and on behalf of the Government,for the compensation of MCFC's present occupancy rights on the subject land." LOI No. 1277 also directed that should NSC and private respondent MCFC fail to reach an agreement within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of LOI No. 1277, petitioner ISA was to exercise its power of eminent domain under P.D. No. 272 and to initiate expropriation proceedings in respect of occupancy rights of private respondent MCFC relating to the subject public land as well as the plant itself and related facilities and to cede the same to the NSC.2Negotiations between NSC and private respondent MCFC did fail. Accordingly, on 18 August 1983, petitioner ISA commenced eminent domain proceedings against private respondent MCFC in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, of Iligan City, praying that it (ISA) be places in possession of the property involved upon depositing in court the amount of P1,760,789.69 representing ten percent (10%) of the declared market values of that property. The Philippine National Bank, as mortgagee of the plant facilities and improvements involved in the expropriation proceedings, was also impleaded as party-defendant.On 17 September 1983, a writ of possession was issued by the trial court in favor of ISA. ISA in turn placed NSC in possession and control of the land occupied by MCFC's fertilizer plant installation.The case proceeded to trial. While the trial was ongoing, however, the statutory existence of petitioner ISA expired on 11 August 1988. MCFC then filed a motion to dismiss, contending that no valid judgment could be rendered against ISA which had ceased to be a juridical person. Petitioner ISA filed its opposition to this motion.In an Order dated 9 November 1988, the trial court granted MCFC's motion to dismiss and did dismiss the case. The dismissal was anchored on the provision of the Rules of Court stating that "only natural or juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil case."3The trial court also referred to non-compliance by petitioner ISA with the requirements of Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.4Petitioner ISA moved for reconsideration of the trial court's Order, contending that despite the expiration of its term, its juridical existence continued until the winding up of its affairs could be completed. In the alternative, petitioner ISA urged that the Republic of the Philippines, being the real party-in-interest, should be allowed to be substituted for petitioner ISA. In this connection, ISA referred to a letter from the Office of the President dated 28 September 1988 which especially directed the Solicitor General to continue the expropriation case.The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration, stating, among other things that:The property to be expropriated is not for public use or benefit [__] but for the use and benefit [__] of NSC, a government controlled private corporation engaged in private business and for profit, specially now that the government, according to newspaper reports, is offering for sale t