Title

National Tobacco Administration vs. Commission on Audit

Case Decision Date

G.R. No. 119385 Aug 5, 1999

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Tobacco Administration,

allowing the continuation of the educational assistance benefit for its employees,
stating that it should not be considered an allowance and that the disallowance
would be contrary to the principle of equity.

370 Phil. 793

EN BANC

[ G.R. No. 119385, August 05, 1999 ]

NATIONAL TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ADMINISTRATOR

AMANTE SIAPNO, EVANGELISTA A. GARCIA, RICARDO BRIONES, CLARITA B. CASTRO,
CRISTINA LOPEZ, JESUS C. BONDOC AND ROSALINA C. CARINO, PETITIONERS, VS.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

PURISIMA, J.:

At bar is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court to review
and set aside the decision of the Commission on Audit[1] dated February 7, 1995 in COA Decision
No. 95-108.[2]

The National Tobacco Administration (NTA, for short), under Executive Order No. 116, as
amended by Executive Order No. 245,[3] is a government-owned and controlled corporation
(GOCC, for brevity) tasked to supervise and improve the viability of the tobacco industry in this
country.

On August 9, 1989, Congress passed Republic Act No. 6758,[4] entitled "An Act Prescribing a
Revised Compensation and Position Classification in the Government and for Other Purposes."
On October 2, 1989, pursuant to Section 23 of said law, the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) issued Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (CCC No. 10) to serve as the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 6758.

Pertinent records show that even prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6758, officials and
employees of the NTA have been enjoying Mid-Year Social Amelioration Benefit equivalent to
one-and-a half (1 1/2) month of their basic salary. From 1989 to 1993, however, the said benefit
was reduced to one (1) month of the basic salary due to financial/budgetary constraints. In May,
1993, the nomenclature of subject social amelioration benefit was changed to educational
assistance in order to reflect the rationale behind the same, which is to encourage its
beneficiaries to pursue graduate studies and to finance the schooling of their children.

Sometime in February, 1994, Miss Dalisay E. Aracan, Resident Auditor of NTA, issued a Notice of
Disallowance of the payment of the educational assistance for calendar year 1993, opining that
the NTA has no statutory authority to grant the incentive. In January, 1995, the same Resident
Auditor caused the disallowance of the same benefit paid in 1994, for the same reason.

On April 25, 1994, the petitioners appealed to the Commission on Audit, praying for the lifting of
the disallowance in question, pointing out that: (1) Benefits received by employees as of July 1,
1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized, pursuant
to Section 12 of R.A. 6758; (2) the benefit having been received for so many years, even prior to
the effectivity of the Salary Standardization Law of 1989, has been a vested right, on the part of
the recipients and (3) such allowance regularly granted, forms part of the total compensation
package of NTA Officers and employees, and, therefore, the disallowance thereof amounts to
unathorized diminution of pay.

On February 7, 1995, the Commission on Audit came out with its questioned Decision the
pertinent portion of which, reads:
"After a thorough evaluation, this Office believes and so holds that the disallowance of the
Auditor on the payment of the mid-year social amelioration benefits or the educational
assistance benefits is in order. It bears stress that Sec. 5.6 of CCC No. 10 (Implementing R.A.
6758) is so explicit when it provides that:
P̀ayment of other allowances/fringe benefit and all other forms of compensation granted on top
of basic salary, whether in cash or in kind, not mentioned in Sub-Paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 above
shall be discontinued effective November 1, 1989. Payment made for such allowance/fringe
benefits after said date shall be considered as illegal disbursement of public Funds.'Since the
educational assistance or the mid- year social amelioration is not among those allowances
mentioned in Sub-pars. 5.4 and 5.5 of CCC No. 10, the same shall be discontinued effective
November 1, 1989 and considering that NTA paid its officials/employees this type of allowance,
such payment shall be considered as illegal disbursement of public funds.
The provision of Sec. 12 second sentence thereof as invoked by the Administrator should be
read in conjunction with the first sentence thus -
`Consolidation of Allowances and Compensation - All allowances except for representation and
transportation allowances; clothing and laundry allowances; subistence [sic] allowance of
marine officers and crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel; hazard pay;
allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad; and such other additional
compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the DBM shall be
deemed included in the standardized salary rates herein prescribed. Such other additional
compensation, whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents only as of July 1, 1989
not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized." ...
...

Premises considered and for lack of legal basis, the herein request of the Administrator, NTA for
the lifting of the disallowance in question, may not be given due course."[5] [Underscoring;
supplied]Undaunted, petitioners found their way to this Court via the present Petition for
Review on Certiorari, filed on April 24, 1995, seeking the annulment of the said COA Decision;
theorizing that the respondent Commission on Audit erred:

I.
IN HOLDING THAT THE PAYMENT OF SUBJECT SOCIAL AMELIORATION /EDUCATIONAL
ASSISTANCE BENEFIT - A BENEFIT CONTINUOUSLY BEING RECEIVED BY INDIVIDUAL
PETITIONERS AND OTHER NTA EMPLOYEES STARTING WAY BEFORE THE EFFECTIVITY OF
THE SALARY STANDARDIZATION LAW (R.A. 6758) ON 1 JULY 1989 - IS NOT AUTHORIZED
UNDER THE SAME LAW (R.A. 6758) OR IS OTHERWISE WITHOUT LEGAL BASIS;

II.

IN FAILING TO REALIZE AND CONSIDER THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE PAYMENT OF

SUBJECT SOCIAL AMELIORATION/EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE BENEFIT IS CONSTITUTIVE
OF DIMINUTION OF COMPENSATION PROSCRIBED UNDER EXISTING LAWS AND IN
VIOLATION OF THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION;

III.

IN FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THAT INDIVIDUAL PETITIONERS AND OTHER SIMILARLY

SITUATED NTA EMPLOYEES HAVE ACQUIRED A VESTED RIGHT OVER SAID SOCIAL
AMELIORATION/EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE BENEFIT AND COA's DISALLOWANCE
THEREOF IS AN ILLEGAL VIOLATION OF SUCH RIGHT.Petitioners raise the pivotal issues: (1)
whether or not the social amelioration or educational assistance benefit given to the individual
petitioners prior to enactment of R.A. 6758 is authorized under the law, (2) whether or not the
disallowance of the said benefit is tantamount to diminution of pay, and (3) whether or not the
individual petitioners have acquired a vested right thereover.

First Issue:

Proper Interpretation of Sections 12 and 17 of R.A. 6758 in Relation to Sub-paragraphs 4.1, 5.4 and
5.5 of Corporate Compensation Circular No.10, the Implementing Rules and Regulation of R.A.
6758.

A. Sections 12 and 17 of R. A. 6758, read:

"Section 12: Consolidation of Allowances and Compensation - All allowances, except for
representation and transportation allowances; clothing and laundry allowances; subsistence
allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel;
hazard pay; allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad; and such other additional
compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the DBM, shall be
deemed included in the standardized salary rates herein prescribed. Such other additional
compensation, whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents only as of July 1, 1989
not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized.

Existing additional compensation of any national government official or employee paid from
local funds of a local government unit shall be absorbed into the basic salary of said official or
employee and shall be paid by the National Government."
while
"Section 17. Salaries of Incumbents - Incumbents of positions presently receiving salaries and
additional compensation/fringe benefits including those absorbed from local government units
and other emoluments, the aggregate of which exceeds the standardized salary rate as herein
prescribed, shall continue to receive such excess compensation, which shall be referred to as
transition allowance. The transition allowance shall be reduced by the amount of salary
adjustment that the incumbent shall received [sic] in the future."B. Section 4.1 of CCC No. 10:
4.0 DEFINITION OF TERMS

4.1 The present salary of an incumbent for purposes of this Circular shall refer to the sum total
of actual basic salary including allowances enumerated hereunder, being received as of June
30, 1989 and certified and authorized by the DBM.
4.1.1 Cost-of-Living Allowance (COLA)/Bank Equity Pay (BEP) equivalent to forty percent (40%) of
basic salary or P300.00 per month, whichever is higher;

4.1.2 Amelioration Allowance equivalent to ten percent (10%) of basic salary or P150.00 per
month, which ever is higher;

4.1.3 COLA granted to GOCCs/GFIs covered by the Compensation and Position Classification
Plan for the regular agencies/offices of the National Government and to GOCCs/GFIs following
the Compensation and Position Classification Plan under LOImp. No. 104/CCC No. 1 and LOImp.
No. 97/CCC No. 2, in the amount of P550.00 per month for those whose monthly basic salary is
P1,500.00 and below, and P500.00 for those whose monthly basic salary is P1,501.00 and above,
granted on top of the COLA/BEP mentioned in Item 4.1.1 above;

4.1.4 Stabilization Allowance; and

4.1.5 Allowance/fringe benefits converted into "Transition Allowance" pursuant to Memorandum

Order No. 177, as implemented by Corporate Budget Circular No. 15, both series of 1988.

4.2 Allowances enumerated above are deemed integrated into the basic salary for the position
effective July 1, 1989.

4.3 Transition allowance, for purposes of this circular shall mean the excess of the present
salary of the incumbent defined in Item 4.1 hereinabove, over the eighth step of the Salary Grade
to which his position is allocated.C. Sub-Paragraphs 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 of CCC. No. 10:
5.0 IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES

...

5.4 The rates of the following allowances/fringe benefits which are not integrated into the basic
salary and which are allowed to be continued after June 30, 1989 shall be subject to the
condition that the grant of such benefit is covered by statutory authority.

5.4.1 Representation and Transportation Allowances (RATA) of incumbent of the position

authorized to receive the same at the highest amount legally authorized as of June 30, 1989 of
the level of his position within the particular GOCC/GFI;

5.4.2 Uniform and Clothing Allowance at a rate as previously authorized;

5.4.3 Hazard Pay as authorized by law;

5.4.4 Honoraria/additional compensation for employees on detail with special projects of inter-
agency undertakings;

5.4.5 Honoraria for services rendered by researchers, experts and specialists who are of
acknowledged authorities in their field of specialization;

5.4.6 Honoraria for lecturers and resource persons/speakers;

5.4.7 Overtime Pay in accordance to Memorandum Order No. 228;

5.4.8 Clothing/laundry allowances and subsistence of marine officers and crew on board
GOCCs/GFIs owned vessels and used in their operations, and of hospital personnel who attend
directly to patients and who by nature of their duties are required to wear uniforms;

5.4.9 Quarters Allowance of officials and employees who are presently entitled to the same;

5.4.10 Overseas, Living Quarters and other allowances presently authorized for personnel
stationed abroad;

5.4.11 Night Differential of personnel on night duty;

5.4.12 Per Diems of members of governing Boards of GOCCs/GFIs at the rate as prescribed in
their respective Charters;

5.4.13 Flying Pay of personnel undertaking aerial flights;

5.4.14 Per Diems/Allowances of Chairman and Members/Staff of collegial bodies and

Committees; and

5.4.15 Per Diems/Allowances of officials and employees on official foreign and local travel
outside of their official station;

5.5 Other allowances/fringe benefits not likewise Integrated into the basic salary and allowed to
be continued only for incumbents as of June 30, 1989 subject to the condition that the grant of
the same is with appropriate authorization either from the DBM, Office of the President or
legislative issuances are as follows:
5.5.1 Rice Subsidy;

5.5.2 Sugar Subsidy;

5.5.3 Death Benefits other than those granted by the GSIS;

5.5.4 Medical/Dental/Optical Allowances/Benefits;

5.5.5 Children's Allowance;

5.5.6 Special Duty Pay/Allowance;

5.5.7 Meal Subsidy;

5.5.8 Longevity Pay; and

5.5.9 Teller's Allowance.

5.6 Payment of other allowances/fringe benefits and all other forms of compensation granted on
top of basic salary, whether in cash or in kind, not mentioned in Sub-paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5
above shall be discontinued effective November 1, 1989. Payment made for such
allowances/fringe benefits after said date shall be considered as illegal disbursement of public
funds."Petitioners maintain "that since they have been receiving the social amelioration or
educational assistance benefit before July 1, 1989, when R.A. No. 6758 took effect, and the benefit
was not integrated into their standardized salary rate, they are entitled to receive it even after
the effectivity of the said Act."[6] They base their claim on the second sentence of Section 12 and
on Section 17 of the Salary Standardization Law which, for the sake of thoroughness and clarity
of discussion, we deem it expedient to quote again, to wit:
"Second Sentence of Section 12, R.A. 6758 - .... Such other additional compensation, whether in
cash or in kind, being received by incumbents only as of July 1, 1989 not integrated into the
standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized;"

xxx

"Section 17: Salaries of Incumbents - Incumbents of positions presently receiving salaries and
additional compensation /fringe benefits including those absorbed from local government units
and other emoluments, the aggregate of which exceeds the standardized salary rate as herein
prescribed, shall continue to receive such excess compensation, which shall be referred as
transition allowance. The transition allowance shall be reduced by the amount of salary
adjustment that the incumbent shall received in the future."It is the submission of the
Commission on Audit that payment of the educational assistance in question is not authorized
under Republic Act No. 6758, arguing "that the provision of Sec. 12, second sentence thereof as
invoked by the Administrator [representing the petitioner herein] should be read in conjunction
with the first sentence...;"[7] and if the entire Section 12 is further considered in relation to sub-
paragraphs 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 of CCC No. 10, respondent concluded that the grant of subject
educational assistance would have no legal basis at all.

Confusion as to the proper interpretation of Section 12 springs from two seemingly

contradictory provisions. The last clause of the first sentence of Section 12, reads:
[A]nd such other additional compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined
by the DBM shall be deemed included in the standardized salary rates herein prescribed;"while
the second sentence of Section 12 is to the following effect:
"Such other additional compensation, whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents
only as of July 1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be
authorized."Before proceeding to rule on the proper interpretation of the two provisos
aforecited, the salient features of the provision as a whole should first be pondered upon and
tackled.

Under the first sentence of Section 12, all allowances are integrated into the prescribed salary
rates, except:
(1) representation and transportation allowances (RATA);

(2) clothing and laundry allowances;

(3) subsistence allowances of marine officers and crew on board government vessels;

(4) subsistence allowance of hospital personnel;

(5) hazard pay;

(6) allowance of foreign service personnel stationed abroad; and

(7) such other additional compensation not otherwise specified in Section 12 as may be
determined by the DBM.Analyzing No. 7, which is the last clause of the first sentence of Section
12, in relation to the other benefits therein enumerated, it can be gleaned unerringly that it is a
"catch-all proviso." Further reflection on the nature of subject fringe benefits indicates that all of
them have one thing in common - they belong to one category of privilege called allowances
which are usually granted to officials and employees of the government to defray or reimburse
the expenses incurred in the performance of their official functions. In Philippine Ports
Authority vs. Commission on Audit,[8] this Court rationalized that "if these allowances are
consolidated with the standardized rate, then the government official or employee will be
compelled to spend his personal funds in attending to his duties."

The conclusion - that the enumerated fringe benefits are in the nature of allowance - finds
support in sub-paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of CCC No. 10.

Sub-paragraph 5.4 enumerates the allowance/fringe benefits which are not integrated into the
basic salary and which may be continued after June 30, 1989 subject to the condition that the
grant of such benefit is covered by statutory authority, to wit:
(1) RATA;

(2) Uniform and Clothing allowances;

(3) Hazard pay;

(4) Honoraria/additional compensation for employees on detail with special projects or inter-
agency undertakings;

(5) Honoraria for services rendered by researchers, experts and specialists who are of
acknowledged authorities in their fields of specialization;

(6) Honoraria for lectures and resource persons or speakers;

(7) Overtime pay in accordance to Memorandum Order No. 228;

(8) Clothing/laundry allowances and subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on
board GOCCs/GFIs owned vessels and used in their operations, and of hospital personnel who
attend directly to patients and who by nature of their duties are required to wear uniforms;

(9) Quarters Allowance of officials and employees who are presently entitled to the same;

(10) Overseas, Living Quarters and other allowances presently authorized for personnel
stationed abroad;
(11) Night differential of personnel on night duty;

(12) Per Diems of members of the governing Boards of GOCCs/GFIs at the rate as prescribed in
their respective Charters;

(13) Flying pay of personnel undertaking aerial flights;

(14) Per Diems/Allowances of Chairman and Members or Staff of collegial bodies and
Committees; and

(15) Per Diems/Allowances of officials and employees on official foreign and local travel outside
of their official station.In addition, sub-paragraph 5.5 of the same Implementing Rules provides
for the other allowances/fringe benefits not likewise integrated into the basic salary and allowed
to be continued only for incumbents as of June 30, 1989 subject to the condition that the grant of
the same is with appropriate authorization either from the DBM, Office of the President or
legislative issuances, as follows:
(1) Rice Subsidy;

(2) Sugar Subsidy;

(3) Death Benefits other than those granted by the GSIS;

(4) Medical/Dental/Optical Allowances/Benefits;

(5) Children's Allowances;

(6) Special Duty Pay/Allowance;

(7) Meal Subsidy;

(8) Longevity Pay; and

(9) Teller's Allowance.On the other hand, the challenged financial incentive is awarded by the
government in order to encourage the beneficiaries to pursue further studies and to help them
underwrite the expenses for the education of their children and dependents. In other words,
subject benefit is in the nature of financial assistance and not of an allowance. For the former,
reimbursement is not necessary while for the latter, reimbursement is required. Not only that,
the former is basically an incentive wage which is defined as "a bonus or other payment made to
employees in addition to guaranteed hourly wages"[9] while the latter cannot be reckoned with
as a bonus or additional income, strictly speaking.

It is indeed decisively clear that the benefits mentioned in the first sentence of Section 12 and
sub-paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of CCC No. 10 are entirely different from the benefit in dispute,
denominated as Educational Assistance. The distinction elucidated upon is material in arriving
at the correct interpretation of the two seemingly contradictory provisions of Section 12.

Cardinal is the rule in statutory construction "that the particular words, clauses and phrases
should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the
statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a
harmonious whole. A statute must so construed as to harmonize and give effect to all its
provisions whenever possible."[10] And the rule - that statute must be construed as a whole -
requires that apparently conflicting provisions should be reconciled and harmonized, if at all
possible.[11] It is likewise a basic precept in statutory construction that the intent of the
legislature is the controlling factor in the interpretation of the subject statute.[12] With these
rules and the foregoing distinction elaborated upon, it is evident that the two seemingly
irreconcilable propositions are susceptible to perfect harmony. Accordingly, the Court
concludes that under the aforesaid "catch-all proviso," the legislative intent is just to include the
fringe benefits which are in the nature of allowances and since the benefit under controversy is
not in the same category, it is safe to hold that subject educational assistance is not one of the
fringe benefits within the contemplation of the first sentence of Section 12 but rather, of the
second sentence of Section 12, in relation to Section 17 of R.A. No. 6758, considering that (1) the
recipients were incumbents when R.A. No. 6758 took effect on July 1, 1989, (2) were, in fact,
receiving the same, at the time, and (3) such additional compensation is distinct and separate
from the specific allowances above-listed, as the former is not integrated into the standardized
salary rate. Simply stated, the challenged benefit is covered by the second sentence of Section 12
of R.A. No. 6758, the application of sub-paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of CCC No. 10 being only confined
to the first sentence of Section 12, particularly the last clause thereof which amplifies the "catch-
all proviso."

Furthermore, the non-inclusion by the Department of Budget and Management of the

controverted educational assistance in Sub-paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of CCC No. 10 is expected
since the term allowance does not include the questioned benefit which belongs to a different
genus. The argument that the said fringe benefit should be disallowed on the ground that it is
not mentioned in the Implementing Rules of the Statute is consequently fallacious. It is a settled
rule of legal hermeneutics that the implementing rules and regulations (CCC No. 10, in this case)
cannot amend the act of Congress (R.A. 6758). The second sentence of R.A. No. 6758 expressly
provides that "such additional compensation ... being received by incumbents ... not integrated
into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized." To be sure, the said Circular
cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the statute as to prohibit something permitted
and allowed by law.[13] The Circular cannot extend the law or expand its coverage as the power
to amend or repeal a statute is vested in the legislature.[14]

Conformably, as mandated by the second sentence of Section 12, in relation to Section 17 of the
Republic Act under interpretation, the mid-year educational assistance should continue to be
authorized.

THE SECOND AND THE THIRD ISSUES:

That the Disallowance of the Payment of Subject Educational Assistance Constitutes Diminution
of Compensation; That the NTA Employees Have Already Acquired a Vested Right Over the
Same.

Gleanable from the wordings of the second sentence of Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758 is the
intention of Congress to prevent any diminution of the pay and benefits being received by
incumbents at the time of the enactment of the Salary Standardization Law. Verily, disallowing
any such benefit is against the spirit of the Statute and is inconsistent with the principle of
equity which "regards the spirit and not the letter..."[15] of the law. Hence, while it cannot be said
that the NTA employees have acquired a vested right over the educational assistance in dispute
as it is always subject to availability of funds,[16] nevertheless, disallowing the same, where
funds are available as in the case under consideration, would be violative of the principle of
equity.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED; the assailed COA Decision No. 95 - 108 is SET
ASIDE, and the disallowance in question LIFTED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
[1] Composed of Commissioners Celso D. Gangan (Chairman); Rogelio B. Espiritu and Sofronio B.

Ursala as members.

[2] Annex "A," Petition; Rollo, 30-32.

[3] Executive Order 245: Implementing the Consolidation of All Agencies and the Creation of the
National Tobacco Administration Prescribing its Charter and for Other Purposes. Date of
Effectivity: July 24, 1987.

[4] Otherwise known as: Salary Standardization Law which took effect on July 1, 1989.

[5] Rollo, pp. 30-32.

[6] Petition, p. 6; Rollo, 17.

[7] See: COA Decision, p. 2; Rollo, 31.

[8] 214 SCRA 653 [1992].

[9] William S. Anderson, Ed., Ballentine's Law Dictionary [1969 Edition].

[10]Ruben Agpalo, Statutory Construction ., 1986 Edition, p. 181; citing Aisporma vs. Court of
Appeals, 113 SCRA 459 [1982] ; See also: Danilo Paras vs. Commission on Elections, 264 SCRA 49
[1996].

[11]
Ibid ., p. 183; citing Lichauco & Co. vs. Apostol, 44 Phil. 138; See also: Aisporma vs. Court of
Appeals, 113 SCRA 459 [1982].

[12] Ibid., p. 38.

[13] People vs. Lim, 108 Phil. 1091

[14] Conte vs. Commission on Audit, 264 SCRA 19 [1996]; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 7th
Ed., pp. 126-131; 157-162.

[15]Air Manila vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 83 SCRA 579 589, citing Bouvier's Law
Dictionary, 3rd Revision, p. 1063.
[16]Subjecting the educational assistance to the availability of funds defeats the meaning of
vested right which is defined as "one which is fixed, unalterbale or irrevocable;... that it is
absolute, complete and unconditional, to the exercise of which no obstacle exists ..." (Luque vs.
Villegas, 30 SCRA 409 [417]).