Scribd
Upload
730 views1 page

Cebu Oxygen Acetylene Co., vs. Drilon, G.R. No. 82849

The petitioner company and union entered into a collective bargaining agreement covering salary increases from 1986 to 1988. However, the Department of Labor and Employment issued an implementing order prohibiting employers from crediting anniversary wage increases under collective bargaining agreements against mandatory wage increases. The petitioner credited the anniversary increase but paid the difference required by the new law. However, the DOL ruled the petitioner violated the law. The Supreme Court held that the implementing order went beyond the scope of the law by prohibiting crediting of increases, and that an administrative agency cannot amend or expand upon an act of Congress through regulations.

Uploaded by

Bug Rancher
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
730 views1 page

Cebu Oxygen Acetylene Co., vs. Drilon, G.R. No. 82849

The petitioner company and union entered into a collective bargaining agreement covering salary increases from 1986 to 1988. However, the Department of Labor and Employment issued an implementing order prohibiting employers from crediting anniversary wage increases under collective bargaining agreements against mandatory wage increases. The petitioner credited the anniversary increase but paid the difference required by the new law. However, the DOL ruled the petitioner violated the law. The Supreme Court held that the implementing order went beyond the scope of the law by prohibiting crediting of increases, and that an administrative agency cannot amend or expand upon an act of Congress through regulations.

Uploaded by

Bug Rancher
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

82849 August 2, 1989

CEBU OXYGEN & ACETYLENE CO., INC. (COACO) petitioner,


vs.
SECRETARY FRANKLIN M. DRILON OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT,
ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR CANDIDO CUMBA OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 7 AND CEBU OXYGEN-ACETYLENE &
CENTRAL VISAYAS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (COACVEA) respondents.

GANCAYCO, J.;

FACTS:
Petitioner and the union of its rank and file employees, Cebu Oxygen Acetylene and Central Visayas
Employees Association (COAVEA) entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) covering the
years 1986 to 1988. The COMPANY agrees that for and during the three (3) year effectivity of this
AGREEMENT, it will grant to all regular covered employees the following salary increases:

For the first year which will be paid on January 14, 1986 - P200  to each covered employee.
For the second year which will be paid on January 16, 1987 - P200 to each covered employee.
For the third year which will be paid on January 16, 1988 - P300 to each covered employee.

In sum, Section 8 of the implementing rules prohibits the employer from crediting anniversary wage
increases negotiated under a collective bargaining agreement against such wage increases mandated by
Republic Act No. 6640.

Petitioner credited the first year increase of P200.00 under the CBA and added the difference of P61.66
(rounded to P62.00) and P31.00 to the monthly salary and the 13th month pay, respectively, of its
employees from the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6640 on December 14, 1987 to February 15, 1988.

On February 22, 1988, a Labor and Employment Development Officer commenced a routine inspection
of petitioner's establishment and found that petitioner committed violations of the law. In sum, the
Assistant Regional Director ordered petitioner to pay the deficiency of P200.00 in the monthly salary and
P231.00 in the 13th month pay of its employees for the period stated. Petitioner argued that the payment
of the differentials constitutes full compliance with Republic Act No. 6640.

ISSUE:
WON an Implementing Order of the Secretary of Labor and Employment (DOLE) can provide for a
prohibition not contemplated by the law it seeks to implement.

HELD:
No. As to the issue of the validity of Section 8 of the rules implementing Republic Act No. 6640, it is a
fundamental rule that implementing rules cannot add or detract from the provisions of law it is designed
to implement. The provisions of Republic Act No. 6640 do not prohibit the crediting of CBA anniversary
wage increases for purposes of compliance with Republic Act No. 6640. The implementing rules cannot
provide for such a prohibition not contemplated by the law. Administrative regulations adopted under
legislative authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and
should be for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions. The law itself cannot be
expanded by such regulations. An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress. 

You might also like