Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & de Los Angeles vs. Home Development Mutual Fund
Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & de Los Angeles vs. Home Development Mutual Fund
[2]
[5]
In a letter dated 18 March 1996, the President and Chief Executive Officer
of HDMF disapproved PETITIONER's application on the ground that the
requirement that there should be both a provident retirement fund and a
housing plan is clear in the use of the phrase "and/or," and that the Rules
Implementing R.A. No. 7742 did not amend nor repeal Section 19 of P.D.
No. 1752 but merely implement the law.
[6]
PETITIONER's appeal with the HDMF Board of Trustees was denied for
having been rendered moot and academic by Board Resolution No. 1208,
[7]
[8]
[10]
[12]
[14]
Finally, HDMF claims that as early as 18 October 1996, it had already filed
certified true copies of the Amendments to the Rules and Regulations with
the University of the Philippines Law Center. This fact is evidenced by
certified true copies of the Certification from the Office of the National
Administrative Register of the U.P. Law Center.
[15]
Waiver and Suspension, has been squarely resolved in the relatively recent
case of China Banking Corp. v. The Members of the Board of Trustees of
the HDMF. We held in that case that Section 1 of Rule VII of the
Amendments to the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 7742,
and HDMF Circular No. 124~B prescribing the Revised Guidelines and
Procedure for Filing Application for Waiver or Suspension of Fund
Coverage under P.D. No. 1752, as amended by R.A. No. 7742, are null and
void insofar as they require that an employer should have both a provident/
retirement plan and a housing plan superior to the benefits offered by the
Fund in order to qualify for waiver or suspension of the Fund coverage. In
arriving at said conclusion, we ruled:
[16]
[18]
[19]
[20]
In the present case, when the Board of Trustees of the HDMF required in
Section 1, Rule VII of the 1995 Amendments to the Rules and Regulations
Implementing R.A. No. 7742 that employers should have both
provident/retirement and housing benefits for all its employees in order to
qualify for exemption from the Fund, it effectively amended Section 19 of
P.D. No. 1752. And when the Board subsequently abolished that exemption
through the 1996 Amendments, it repealed Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752.
Such amendment and subsequent repeal of Section 19 are both invalid, as
they are not within the delegated power of the Board. The HDMF cannot, in
the exercise of its rule~making power, issue a regulation not consistent with
the law it seeks to apply. Indeed, administrative issuances must not
override, supplant or modify the law, but must remain consistent with the
law they intend to carry out. Only Congress can repeal or amend the
law. Scslx
[21]