MECANO v COA

Dec 11, 1992

FACTS:

Mecano, director of NBI, seeks to nullify the decision of the COA embodied in its 7 th
endorsement January 16 1992, denying his claim for reimbursement under Section
699 of the Revised Admin Code in the amount of P 40, 831.00
Mecano, hospitalized for cholecystitis from march 26, 1990 to April 7, 1990 on
account of which he incurred medical and hospitalization expenses, of 40, 831
1990 in a memo NBI director Lim, requested for reimbursement for his expenses on
the ground that he is entitled for benefits under section 699 of RAC
Sec 699 RAC
o Allowances in case of injury, death, or sickness incurred in performance of dutyWhen a person inservice of the National Govt of a province, city, municipality,
municipal district. Is so injured in the performance of duty as thereby to receive
some actual physical hurt or wound, the proper head of dept may direct that
absence during any period of disability thereby occasioned shall be on full pay,
though not more than sux month, and in such case he may in his discretion also
authorize the payment of the medical attendance, necessary transportation
subsistence and hospital fees of the injured person. Absence in the case
contemplated shall be charged first against vacation leave, if any there be.
Xxxxxxx in case of sickness caused by or connected directly with the
performance of some act in the line of duty, the department head may in his
discretion authorize the payment of the necessary hospital fees.
Lim then forwarded the claim in a 1st endorsement in 1990 to Sec of Justices with
comment from Chief LED of the NBI.
Sec of Justice favourably recommended the payment of petitioners claim because
the illness was service oriented
Usec of justice in 4th endorsement returned the claim to director Lim having
considered the statements of the chairman of coa in its 5th endorsement due to the
effect that the RAC being relied upon was repealed by the Admin code 1987
Petitioner resubmitted his claim to Lim with compy of Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 in
19991 of then Sec Justice Drilon stating that the issuance of the Admin Code did not
operate to repeal or abregate in its entirety the RAC including the Particular Section
699 of the Latter
1991 Lim again sent the claim to usec justice for favourably consideration
6th endorsement- drilon forwarded petitioners claim to COA recommending payment
of the same
COA denied petitioners claim on the ground that Sec 699 has already been repealed
by Admin Code 1987. Advised that claim may be filed under ECC
9th endorsement- elevate to SC
PETITIONER: claims sec 699 of the RAC as amended by OPINION 73 S. 1991 of Sec
drilon.
o That in the event that a claim is filed with the ECC, he would still not be bared
from claiming under sec 699
RESPONDENT: AC of 1987 repealed RAC
o Whereas clauses of AC presents intent of the Legislature to repeal the code.
o Questions the applicability of the aforesaid opinion of the Secjustice in
deciding the matter

ISSUE: W/n there was a repeal of the RAC of 1971?

HELD:

Repeal clause is a matter of legislative intent. Lawmakers can both impliedly and
expressly repeal a law.
Sec 27 of AC All laws decrees, orders, rules and regulation, or portions thereof
inconsistent with this code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
What is the nature of the repealing clause? General repealing provision as stated in
Opinion 73 2, 1991.
o A clause which predicates the intended repeal under the condition that
substantial conflict must be found in existing and prior acts.
o Failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that intent was not to
repeal any existing law, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy
exist in the terms of the new and old laws. implied repeal.
Repeal by implication a statue of later date clearly reveals an intention on the part
of the legislature to abrogate a prior act on the subject, that intention must be given
effect.
o 1. 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 statutes cover same subject matter clearly inconsistent and
incompatible, they cannot be reconciled
o 2. Later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended
as a substitute.
In the case
o New code does not attempt to cover the entire subject matter of the old code.
One of them is Sec 699
o COA failed to demonstrate that the provisions of the two codes on the matter
of the subject claim are in an irreconcilable comflict
o COA still claims that because AC and RAC is the same subject on matters of
administration, AC repeals RAC bec of same subject.
o SC goes to second manner of implied repeal: manifest indication that the
legislative want to repeal RAC.
o Opinion 73 S, 1991 in pari material material in the construction of statues
AC intent only those aspects of government that pertain to
administration, organisation and procedure, understandably because of
the many changes that transpired in the govt structure since the
enactment of the RAC.
o SC upholds principle REPEALS BY IMPLICATION ARE NOT FAVORED, AND WIL
NOT BE DECREED UNLESS IT IS MANIFEST THT THE LEGISLATURE SO
INTENDED. AS LAWS ARE PRESUMED TO BE PASSED WITH DELIBERATION WITH
FULL KNOWLEDGE OF ALL EXISTING ONES ON THE SUBJECT, IT IS BUT
REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT IN PASSIDNG A STATUTE IT WAS NOT
INTENDED TO INTERFERE WITH OR ABROGATE ANY FORMER LAW RELATING
TO SOME MATTER UNLESS THE REPUGNANCY BET THE TWO IS NOT ONLY
IRRECONCILABLE, BUT ALSO CLEAR AND CONVINCING, AND FLOWING
NECESSARILY
Wherefore grant of claim.