Case Digest: Phil. International Trading Corp. v. COA

G.R. No. 183517 : June 22, 2010

PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.

PEREZ, J.:


FACTS:

With the issuance of PD 1071, otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the Philippine International Trading Corporation, then President Marcos issued EO 756, authorizing the reorganization of PITC. On February 18, 1983, President Marcos issued Executive Order No. 87. Romero, an officer of petitioner, filed a July 16, 2001 request, seeking from petitioner payment of retirement differentials on the strength of Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756. COA Comm. Habitan issued the assailed ruling,stating that Reserve for Retirement Gratuity and Commutation of Leave Credits of petitioners employees did not include allowances outside of the basic salary, said officer ruled that Executive Order No. 756 was a special law issued only for the specific purpose of reorganizing petitioner corporation. Finding that Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 was simply an incentive to encourage employees to resign or retire at the height of petitioners reorganization, said decision went on to make the following pronouncements, to wit:"Moreover, RA No. 4968 prohibits the creation of any insurance retirement plan by any government agency and government-owned or controlled corporation other than the GSIS.

ISSUE: Whether Executive Order No. 756 is an additional alternative to existing general retirement laws and/or an exception to the prohibition against separate or supplementary insurance retirement or pension plans.

HELD: No.

POLITICAL LAW: interpretation of statute; Executive Order No. 756 as an additional alternative to existing general retirement law.


Time and again, it has been held that every statute must be so interpreted and brought in accord with other laws as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence. In the absence of a manifest and specific intent from which the same may be gleaned, Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 cannot be construed as an additional alternative to existing general retirement laws and/or an exception to the prohibition against separate or supplementary insurance retirement or pension plans as aforesaid. Aside from the fact that a meaning that does not appear nor is intended or reflected in the very language of the statute cannot be placed therein by construction, petitioner would likewise do well to remember that repeal of laws should be made clear and express. Repeals by implication are not favored as laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation and full knowledge of all laws existing on the subject, the congruent application of which the courts must generally presume. For this reason, it has been held that the failure to add a specific repealing clause particularly mentioning the statute to be repealed indicates that the intent was not to repeal any existing law on the matter, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exists in the terms of the new and old laws.

As an adjunct to the reorganization mandated under Executive Order No. 756, SC find that the foregoing provision cannot be interpreted independent of the purpose or intent of the law. Rather than the permanent retirement law for its employees that petitioner now characterizes it to be, SC stated that the provision of gratuities equivalent to one month pay for every year of service computed at highest salary received including all allowances was clearly meant as an incentive for employees who retire, resign or are separated from service during or as a consequence of the reorganization petitioners Board of Directors was tasked to implement. Again, as a temporary measure, it cannot be interpreted as an exception to the general prohibition against separate or supplementary insurance and/or retirement or pension plans under Section 28, Subsection (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 186, amended.

Petition is DENIED.