Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Power to Construe
6. National Food Authority v. Masada Security
Agency, G.R. no. 163448, march 8, 2005
FACTS:
MSA Inc. is a security agency engaged in providing
security services to individuals, corporations or government
agencies. On September 17, 1996, MSA entered into a one
year contract to provide security services to the various
offices, warehouses and installations of NFA within the scope
of the NFA Region 1. In their agreement, the parties
acknowledged the application to their contract of the wage
orders issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and
Productivity Boards (RTWPB) which has wage fixing authority
within the region including wage orders setting the daily
minimum wage rates pursuant to R.A. 6727.
Under Section 4 of R.A. 6727, the statutory minimum
wage rates for all workers and employees in the private
sector, whether agricultural or non-agricultural shall be
increased by P25 per day. Pursuant to this law, RTWPB issued
several wage orders mandating increases in the daily wage
rate. Accordingly, MSA requested NFA for a corresponding
upward adjustment in the monthly contract rate consisting of
the increases in the daily minimum wage of the security
guards as well as the corresponding raise in their overtime
pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay, and rest day pay. MSA also
claimed increases in Social Security (SSS) and Pag-Ibig
premiums as well as administrative costs and margin. NFA
however granted the request only with respect to the
increase in the daily wage by multiplying the amount of the
mandated increase by 30 days and denied the same with
respect to adjustments in the other wage related benefits
and remunerations computed on the basis of the daily wage.
ISSUE: Was the NFA correct?
indirect
employers
in
construction
projects
and
establishments providing security, janitorial and similar
services.
The court found merit in NFAs contention that its
additional liability under the aforcited provision is
only limited to the payment of the increment in the
statutory minimum wage rate i.e. the rate for a regular
eight (8) hour work day.
Expresio unius est exclusio alterius. Where a statute, by its
terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by
interpretation or construction, be extended to others. Since
the increase in wage referred to in Section 6 pertains to the
statutory minimum wage as defined herein, principals in
service contracts cannot be made to pay the corresponding
wage increase in the overtime pay, night shift differential,
holiday and rest day pay, premium pay and other benefits
granted to workers. While basis of said remuneration and
benefits is the statutory minimum wage, the law cannot be
unduly expanded as to include those not stated in the subject
provision.
HELD/ RULING:
Payment of the increases in the wage rate of workers is
ordinarily shouldered by the employer. Section 6 of RA 6727,
however, expressly lodged said obligation to the principals or
1 Consisting of: (1)daily minimum wage of the security
guards; (2) overtime pay; (3) holiday pay (4)13 th month pay;
(5) holiday and rest day pay; (6) Social Security System
[SSS]; (7) Pag-ibig premiums as well as administrative costs
and margin.
HELD:
It does not apply since the law that the crime Rivera was
accused of committing is not explicitly stated in the R.P.C
(although it is worthy to mention that the crime of indictment
of the innocent is present in the Old Penal Code)
The old penal code described it as the charge of the offense
is the imputation itself if made in front of the administrative/
judicial officer while the R.P.C defines the offense as the act
that leads (tends directly) to imputation of the offense.
The art 363 of the R.P.C was defined or described as
planting of evidence.
COURT HELD THAT THE ACCUSED FAUSTINO RIVERA IS NOT
GUILTY OF THE CRIME FO INCRIMINATION OF THE INNOCENT.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION LESSON:
It is well settled law that where the text of a statute is clear,
it is improper to resort to a caption or title to make it
obscure.
and claimed that the facts alleged did not fall under Article
363 of the Revised Penal Code, and that, Article 363 of the
Codigo Penal does not appear in the Revised Penal Code.
Hence, there is no offense embracing acusacion o denuncia
falsa.
Issue: Whether or not Rivera can be charged guilty of
incriminating innocent people under Article 363 of the
Revised Penal Code
Held: No. Not guilty and inapplicable.
Ratio: The crime Rivera was accused of is not explicitly
stated in the Revised Penal Code, although the crime of
indictment of the innocent is included in the Old Penal Code.
Article 363 of the Old Penal Code talks about punishment for
false prosecutions. In the Revised Penal Code, Article 363
pertains to punishment for any act which may tend directly
to cause a false prosecution. This provision is limited to acts
of planting evidence which do not constitute false
prosecution but tend directly to cause false prosecutions.
StatCon maxim: The title may indicate the legislative intent
to extend or restrict the scope of the law and a statute
couched in a language of doubtful import will be construed to
conform to the legislative intent as disclosed in its title.
CASE 2 ALALAYAN V. NAPOCOR
Supreme
Court
simply
ruled
that the
and Forty One) was passed. This law amended the charter of
inquire into the body of the bill, study and discuss the same,
FACTS:
HELD:
PREAMBLE
Held:
1. It is the constitutional right of any person who stands
charged in a criminal prosecution to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him.
2. Under Sec. 5 Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, for a
complaint or information to be sufficient, it must state the
designation of the offense by the statute and the acts or
omissions complained of as constituting the offense. This is
essential to avoid surprise on the accused and to afford him
the opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly.
7
ISSUES:
(1)
Whether or not Act. 3107 applies to justices and
auxiliary justices of the peace who were appointed prior to
the passage of said act.
(2) Whether or not Sec. 216 applies to public officers.
HELD:
(1) No. Attention is called to one of the provisions of section
3 of the Jones Law "That no bill which may be enacted into
law shall embrace more than one subject, and that subject
shall be expressed in the title of the bill." Considering that
there is nothing in the title of Act No. 3107 which indicates in
the slightest degree that said Act contains a provision "that
justices and auxiliary justices of the peace shall be appointed
to serve until they have reached the age of sixty-five years,
the court is forced to the conclusions that, that provision is
illegal, void and contrary to the mandatory provision of the
Jones Law, and that said law cannot be applied to justices
and auxiliary justices of the peace who were appointed prior
to the 17th day of March, 1923; and that when Julio Agcaoili
was forcibly, by means of threats and intimidation, ordered to
leave his office as justice of the peace, he was forced to do
so illegally, without just cause, and should therefore be
restored to his position as justice of the peace of the
municipality of Laoag, without delay.
(2) No. A semicolon is a mark of grammatical punctuation,
in the English language, to indicate a separation in the
relation of the thought, a degree greater than that expressed
1984, TMX Sales filed a petition for review before the Court of
Tax Appeals against CIR, praying that the CIR be ordered to
refund to TMX the amount of P247,010. The CIR averred that
TMX is already barred for claiming the refund since more
than 2 years has elapsed between the payment (May 15,
1981) and the filing of the claim in court (March 14, 1984).
The Court of Tax Appeals rendered a decision granting the
petition of TMX Sales and ordered CIR to refund the amount
mentioned. Hence, this appeal of CIR.
Issue: Whether or not TMX Sales Inc. is entitled to a refund
considering that two years gas already elapsed since the
payment of the tax
Held: Yes. Petition denied.
Ratio: Sec. 292, par. 2 of the National Internal Revenue Code
stated that in any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be
begun after the expiration of two years from the date of the
payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening
cause that may arise after payment. This should be
interpreted in relation to the other provisions of the Tax Code.
The most reasonable and logical application of the law would
be to compute the 2-year prescriptive period at the time of
the filing of the Final Adjustment Return or the Annual Income
Tax Return, where it can finally be ascertained if the tax
payer has still to pay additional income tax or if he is entitled
to a refund of overpaid income tax. Since TMX filed the suit
on March 14, 1984, it is within the 2-year prescriptive period
starting from April 15, 1982 when they filed their Annual
Income Tax Return.
StatCon maxim: The intention of the legislature must be
ascertained from the whole text of the law and every part of
the act is taken into view.
CASE 1 - Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. TMX
Sales
for
2.
3.
4.
5.
Extension,
Situada
en
el
Distrito
de
la
Ermita."[Translation: Parcel of land which is part of the
Luneta Extension, situated in the District of Ermita]
6. At the back of this title was an annotated document
which in part reads as follows: [Attempted Translation:
That the said city of Manila has the legal option to
repurchase the said property solely for public
purposes, at any time after fifty years from the 13th of
July 1911, at the price previously paid to the buying
entity or the future market price of the property,
whichever value is higher.]
7. In January 1963 the BPOE petitioned the CFI of Manila,
Branch IV, for the cancellation of the right of the City
Manila to repurchase the property. This petition was
granted on February 15, 1963.
8. On November 19, 1963 the BPOE sold for the sum of
P4,700,000
the
land
together
with
all
the
improvements thereon to the Tarlac Development
Corporation (TDC, for short) which paid P1,700,000 as
down payment and mortgaged to the vendor the same
realty to secure the payment of the balance to be paid
in quarterly installments. At the time of the sale, there
was no annotation of any subsisting lien on the title to
the property.
9. On December 12, 1963 TCT No. 73444 was issued to
TDC over the subject land still described as "Una
parcela de terreno, que es parte de la Luneta
Extension, situada en el Distrito de Ermita."
10.In June 1964 the City of Manila filed with the CFI of
Manila a petition for the reannotation of its right to
repurchase. The court, after hearing, issued an order,
dated November 19, 1964, directing the Regrister of
Deeds of the City of Manila to reannotate in toto the
entry regarding the right of the City of Manila to
repurchase the property after fifty years. From this
15
3.
4.
5.
6.
view
of
due
process
On the second issue, petitioner advances the highly
stretched theory that Sec. 4 of the Plunder Law circumvents
the immutable obligation of the prosecution to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the predicate acts constituting the crime of
plunder when it requires only proof of a pattern of overt or
criminal acts showing unlawful scheme or conspiracy. The
HELD:
1. It is basic in cases of irreconcilable conflict between two
laws that the later legislative enactment prevails.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Paras v. COMELEC had
the opportunity to mention when the next barangay election
should be when it stated that the next regular election
involving the barangay office is barely 7 months away, the
same having been scheduled in May 1997.
22