Topic: Preliminaries (Chapter 1) Title: Antonio A. Mecano vs. Commission On Audit, Respondent. Citation: G.R. No. 103982, December 11, 1992
Topic: Preliminaries (Chapter 1) Title: Antonio A. Mecano vs. Commission On Audit, Respondent. Citation: G.R. No. 103982, December 11, 1992
Topic: Preliminaries (Chapter 1) Title: Antonio A. Mecano vs. Commission On Audit, Respondent. Citation: G.R. No. 103982, December 11, 1992
FACTS:
Petitioner then re-submitted his claim to Director Lim, with a copy of Opinion
No. 73, S. 1991 of then Secretary of Justice Drilon stating that “the issuance of the
Administrative Code did not operate to repeal or abregate in its entirety the
Revised Administrative Code, including the particular Section 699 of the latter”.
Director Lim transmitted anew Mecano’s claim to then Undersecretary Bello for
favorable consideration; Secretary Drilon forwarded petitioner’s claim to the COA
Chairman, recommending payment of the same. COA Chairman however,
denied petitioner’s claim claiming Section 699 of the RAC had been repealed by
the Administrative Code of 1987, solely for the reason that the same section was
not restated nor re-enacted in the Administrative Code of 1987. He commented,
however, that the claim may be filed with the Employees’ Compensation
Commission, considering that the illness of Director Mecano occurred after the
effectivity of the Administrative Code of 1987. Eventually, petitioner’s claim was
returned by Undersecretary of Justice Montenegro to Director Lim with the advice
that petitioner “elevate the matter to the Supreme Court if he so desires”. Hence
this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE:
HELD:
Sec. 27. Repealing Clause. — All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, or
portions thereof, inconsistent with this Code are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly.
The question that should be asked is: What is the nature of this repealing clause?
1. Where provisions in the two acts on the same subject matter are in an
irreconcilable conflict, the later act to the extent of the conflict constitutes an
implied repeal of the earlier one.
2. If the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly
intended as a substitute, it will operate to repeal the earlier law.
Comparing the two Codes, it is apparent that the new Code does not
cover nor attempt to cover the entire subject matter of the old Code. There are
several matters treated in the old Code which are not found in the new Code,
such as the provisions on notaries public, the leave law, the public bonding law,
military reservations, claims for sickness benefits under Section 699, and still others.
According to Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 of the Secretary of Justice, what appears
clear is the intent to cover only those aspects of government that pertain to
administration, organization and procedure, understandably because of the
many changes that transpired in the government structure since the enactment
of the RAC decades of years ago.
Moreover, the COA failed to demonstrate that the provisions of the two
Codes on the matter of the subject claim are in an irreconcilable conflict. In fact,
there can be no such conflict because the provision on sickness benefits of the
nature being claimed by petitioner has not been restated in the Administrative
Code of 1987. Lastly, it is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that repeals
of statutes by implication are not favored. The presumption is against
inconsistency and repugnancy for the legislature is presumed to know the existing
laws on the subject and not to have enacted inconsistent or conflicting statutes.