RMBSA v HDMF

Facts:

Pursuant to Section 19 of PD 1752, as amended by RA 7742 Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc, and De Los Angeles, a law firm, was exempted from the Pag-IBIG Fund coverage by respondent HDMF because of a superior retirement plan.

HDMF Board of Trustees issued an amendment to the Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 7742 providing that for a company to be entitled to a waiver of Fund coverage, it must have a plan providing for both provident/retirement AND housing benefits superior to those provided under the Pag-IBIG Fund.

Petitioner filed an application for Waiver because of its superior retirement plant, explaining that the 1995 amendments are invalid. HDMF disapproved the application on the ground that the requirement that there should be both a provident retirement fnd and a housing plan is clear in the use of the prhase and/or.

Petitioners appeal deemed moot and academic in light of 1996 Amendment removiing the availment of waiver of the mandatory coverage of the Pag-IBIG Fund, except for distressed employers.

CA dismissed petition on the ground that coverage of employers and employees under the HDMF is mandatory in character. Petitioner is also not a distressed employer. Amendments are also valid. Under PD 1752 and RA 7742, Board of Trustees is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations, as well as amendments concerning the waiver of coverage under the Pag-IBIG Fund.

Petitioner contends 1995 Amendments are inconsistent with PD 1752 which merely requires as a pre-condition for exemption from coverage the existence of either a superior provident/retirement plan OR a superior housing plan, and NOT the concurrence of both plans. 1996 Amendment also void insofar as they abloished the exemption grnted by Section 19 of PD 1752, as amended. This would be tantamount to a repeal, which involves legislative power, which is not delegated to HDMF

Issue:

W/N Petitioners sole concurrence with a superior retirement plan is enough to be granted a waiver under the law

Held:

As held in China Banking Corp. v The Members of the Board of Trustees of the HDMF, the controversy lies in the legal signigication of the words and/or. It is accordingly ordinarily held that the intention of the legislature in using the term and/or is that the word and and the word or are to be used interchangeably.

It is clear from the language of the enabling law that Section 19 of PD 1752 intended that an emplyer with a provident plan OR an employee housing plan superior to that of the fund may obtain exemption form coverage. If the law had intended that the emplyer should have both a superior plan and a housing plan in order to qualify for the exemption, it would have used the words and instead of and/or. The law obviously (par (a) Section 19: use of plan or plans) contemplates that the existence of either plan is considered as sufficient basis for the grant of an exemption. To require both would impose a stringent condition for waiver which was not envisioned by the basic law.