Bangcal, Angela May Q.

JD-1B Keyword: Pari Materia- when

they relate to the same
CHAPTER VII person or thing or to the
G.R. No. 188866; October 19, 2011 same class of persons or
PEZA v. Green Asia things, or object, or cover the
same specific or particular
FACTS: subject matter.

The Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) entered into a contract with
Green Asia Construction and Development Corporation (Green Asia) for the
development of infrastructure within the economic zone. The project was
awarded to Green Asia on September 14, 1992, and signed the contract on
September 23, 1992. The Green Asia sent a letter to the PEZA director
invoking the PD 1594, notified PEZA of Green Asia’s claim for price
escalation. A dispute arose when PEZA denied the claim alleging that Green
Aisa failed to present proof of the increase or decrease in construction cost as
anchored in Section 8, PD 1594. Due to repeated denials of claim, Green Asia
sent then President Arroyo a letter of Appeal asking her to intervene for the
affirmative resolution of its claim against PEZA. The Office of the President
(OP) was in favor of Green Asia ordering the PEZA to pay the the total
amount. The CA sustained the OP decision and the result was again to Green
Asia. The issue arose when CA found the OP’s construction of PD 1594, in
connection with PD 454, the latter was not expressly repealed by the former.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the decision of the CA in sustaining the disposition of the case
by the OP is correct.

RULINGS:

Yes. The Court agree with the ruling of the appellate court that the OP
correctly construed PD 1594 as being in pari materia to PD 454. Since the two
presidential decrees are in pari materia, there is a need to construe them
together. PD 454 which was enacted prior to PD 1594, was where the phrase
"direct acts of the government" was explained to cover the increase of prices
during the effectivity of a government infrastructure contract.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the assailed Decision of the Court of

Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
CHAPTER VIII
G.R. No. L-32052; July 25, 1975 Keyword: Laissez faire-
PVTA v. CIR promoting the idea of
free economy, allowing
businesses to compete in
the marketplace without
FACTS: government interference.

Private respondents filed with respondent Court a petition for alleged

overtime services in excess of the regular eight hours a day rendered and
failure to pay their overtime compensation in accordance with
Commonwealth Act No. 444. An answer filed by the petitioner Philippine
Virginia Tobacco Administration denying the allegations.
Then Presiding Judge Martinez of respondent Court issued an order
sustaining the claims of private respondents for overtime services and
directing petitioner to pay the same.
Petitioner Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration would predicate its
plea for the reversal of the order complained of on the basic proposition that it
is beyond the jurisdiction of respondent Court as it is exercising governmental
functions, however, it is not a necessary consequence that respondent Court is
devoid of jurisdiction. Nor could the challenged order be set aside on the
additional argument that the Eight-Hour Labor Law is not applicable to it.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner, the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration,

discharges governmental and not proprietary functions.

RULING:

Yes. RA 2265 proposes the objectives and one of it is to promote the effective
merchandising of Virginia tobacco in the domestic and foreign market. The
amendatory statute, RA 4155, renders even more evident its nature as a
governmental agency. Its first section of policy reads that it is declared to be
the national policy to encourage the production of tobacco of the qualities
needed, to establish this industry on an efficient and economic basis, and to
create a climate conducive to local cigarette manufacture of the qualities
desired by the consuming public. The doctrines of laissez faire and of
unrestricted freedom of the individual, as axioms of economic and political
theory, are of the past. The modern period has shown a widespread belief in
the amplest possible demonstration of government activity." The path this
Court is not prepared to take would be to go backward, to retreat rather than
to advance. There is no constitutional obstacle to a government pursuing lines
of endeavor, formerly reserved for private enterprise. Hence, the Court
ordered to find who is entitled under this judgment and the reexamination of
records of respondent PVTA and submit report of findings by the CED.
CHAPTER VIII
Keyword: Prospectivity and
G.R. No. L-14406; June 30, 1961
Retroactivity rule on amendment-
Buyco v. PNB
after an act is amended, the
original act continues to be in
force with regard to all rights that
FACTS: had accrued prior to such
amendment.
Petitioner Marcelino Buyco was indebted to respondent Philippine National
Bank with interest, filed a mandamus case praying that repondent bank be
compelled to accept his BAC. The said loan was secured by a mortgage of real
property. Petitioner is a holder of Backpay Acknowledgment Certificate,
offered to pay respondent bank the deficit of his crop loan with his said BAC.
The PNB denied the offer due to a pending case decision. The petitioner then
requested respondent to reconsider its decision. The said respondent’s Legal
Department referred this case to the Court of First Instance, expressed the
view that they could not accept the certificate because of the amendment of its
Charter by RA 1576.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the amendment of charter by RA 1576 does affect the

acceptance of certificate of the petitioner.

RULING:

No. The amendment done by RA 1576 of the Bank’s charter does not affect the
acceptance of certificate of the petitioner. In the light of the Supreme Court’s
decision, the respondent bank was authorized to accept BAC as payment of
the obligation of any holder thereof. The amendment, therefore has no
retroactive effect, and the present case should be governed by the law at the
time the offer in question was made. The rule is familiar that after an act is
amended, the original act continues to be in force with regard to all rights that
had accrued prior to such amendment.
It is true that "acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or
prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their
validity" (Art 5, New Civil Code).
CHAPTER IX
Keyword: Prospectivity and
G.R. No. L-10662; December 14, 1956
Retroactivity rule on judicial
Senarillos v. Hermosisima, et. Al.
decision- Court’s construction
merely establishes the
contemporaneous legislative
intent that the correct law is
FACTS: carried into effect..

The parties are agreed that Roque Senarillos, was appointed Chief of Police of
Sibonga, Cebu. Charges filed by one Geraldizo against Senarillos and was
suspended by Municipal Mayor and investigated by a “police committee”.
Senarillos protest that the investigation should not be conducted by a
committee but by full council as provided by RA 557. Upon the expiration of
the original period of suspension, Mayor Hermosisima again suspended
Senarillos on the strength of Admin Case, which was never tried. After the
expiration of second suspension, mayor Hermosisima file a criminal case for
swindling against Senarillos, and suspended him for the third time. The
investigation of police officers under RA 557 must be conducted by the
council itself, and not by a mere committee thereof. The court interpreted that
“Republic Act No. 557 has eliminated the provision authorizing investigation
by a committee of the council. We held that the change meant that the
investigation should be by the council itself.”

ISSUE:

Whether or not the “police committee” constituted by the Municipal Council

of Sibonga had no jurisdiction to invetigate the appellee Chief of Police.

RULING:

Yes. The trial court was, therefore, correct in holding that the investigation
proceedings were not conducted by the municipal council and in annulling
the results of the investigation. It is elementary that the interpretation placed
by this Court upon Republic Act 557 constitutes part of the law as of the date
it was originally passed, since this Court's construction merely establishes the
contemporaneous legislative intent that the interpreted law carried into effect.
Therefore, it is clear that under the present law, the "police committee"
constituted by the Municipal Council of Sibonga had no jurisdiction to
investigate the appellee Chief of Police; hence the decision against him was
invalid, even if concurred in by the rest of the councilors, specially since the
petitioner called attention from the beginning to the impropriety and illegality
of the committee's actuations, and of his trial by only some and not all the
members of the council.
CHAPTER IX
Keyword: Statutory
G.R. No. 121158; December 05, 1996 Supremacy- Statute is superior
Chinabank, et. Al. v. Court of Appeals, et. Al. to an administrative directive.
Law cannot be repealed or
amended by mere
administrative orders or
circulars unless
FACTS: explicitlyallowed by law itself.

China Bank extended loans to Native West International Trading Corporation

(Native West) and So Ching, the Native West’s President. Native west
executed a promissory note in favor of China Bank. Additionally, So Ching,
with the marital consent of his wife, additionally executed two mortgages
over titled parcels of land. The promissory notes matured and despite due
demands by the petitioner, the spouses So Ching. The petitioner then filed for
the extra-judicial foreclosure on the two mortgage contracts. The issue
revolved around the interpretation of statutory provisions concerning the
authority of banks to engage in certain transactions. The petitioner, China
Banking Corporation, contested a decision by the Court of Appeals that
upheld a ruling from the Regional Trial Court regarding the bank's liability
under certain administrative regulations.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the statutory provisions governing banking operations took

precedence over administrative directives issued by regulatory bodies.

RULING:

No. The Statutory Supremacy principle asserts that a statute is superior to an

administrative directive. This principle asserts that statutory law cannot be
repealed or amended by mere administrative orders or circulars unless
explicitly allowed by law itself. The Court highlighted that any administrative
directive that contradicts a statute is ineffective and cannot impose additional
liabilities on entities governed by that statute. Therefore, the Supreme Court
ruled in favor of China Banking Corporation.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

The petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed decision as well as Resolution

of the Court of Appeals are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.