REVISIONS AND CODIFICATIONS

MONTELIBANO V. FERRER The question involved in this case is one purely of law. On June 13, 1953, respondent Jose F. Benares filed, with the Municipal Court of the City of Bacolod, a criminal complaint, which was docketed as Case No. 2864 of said court, against petitioners herein, Alfredo Montelibano, Pastor Mallorca, Gonzalgo de la Torre and Jose Articulo, charging them with the crime of malicious mischief. It is alleged in said complaint: That on or about the 5th, the 7th and the 8th of June, 1953, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this court, Alfredo Montelibano, as author by inducement, Pastor Mallorca, Gonzalo de la Torre and Jose Articulo, as authors by direct participations, conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and deliberately cause damage to the sugarcane plantation belonging to Jose F. Benares, the offended party herein, intentionally and using bulldozer and destroying completely eighteen (18) hectares of sugarcanes obviously under the impulse of hatred and a desire for revenge, as the accused, Alfredo Montelibano, failed in his attempt to have the herein offended party punished for contempt of Court in Civil Case No. 1896 of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, thereby causing upon said Jose F. Benares damage in the amount of more than P13,000.00. Upon the filing of this complaint, due course was given thereto by the herein respondent, Hon. Felix S. Ferrer, Municipal Judge of the City of Bacolod, who, likewise, issued the corresponding warrant of arrest. On or about June 22, 1953, the aforementioned defendants (petitioners herein) filed a motion to quash said warrant of arrest, as well as the complaint, upon several grounds, which may be reduced to two, namely : (1) The only officer authorized by the Charter of the City of Bacolod to initiate criminal cases in the courts thereof is its City Attorney, who is opposed to the institution of said Case No. 2864; and (2) Said case involves a prejudicial question. In this connection, petitioners alleged, and Benares has not denied, the following: Sometime in 1940, the Capitol Subdivision Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the Subdivision), of which petitioner Alfredo Montelibano is the president and general manager, leased Lot No. 1205-I-1 (which is the same property involved in Case No. 2864) to Benares, for a period of five (5) crop years, ending in the cropyear 1944-1945, with an option in favor of Benares, of another five (5) cropyears. On June 5, 1951, the Subdivision instituted against Benares, unlawful detainer case No. 1896 of the Municipal Court of the City of Bacolod, which, in due course, subsequently, rendered a decision ordering his ejectment from said lot. Benares appealed to the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental (in which it was docketed as Civil Case No. 1896). On motion of the Subdivision, this court issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, commanding Benares to turn over the aforementioned lot to the Subdivision, which filed a bond undertaking to pay to Benares all damages which he may sustain by reason of the issuance of said writ, if the court should finally decide that the plaintiff was not entitled thereto. Inasmuch as Benares continued planting on Lot No. 1205-L1, instead of delivering it to the Subdivision, the latter filed a petition praying that the former be declared in contempt of court. This petition was denied, by an order dated April 30, 1953, which however, required Benares to immediately and promptly obey the order of preliminary mandatory injunction. On June 5, 1953 the provincial sheriff delivered the land in question to the Subdivision. Seemingly, acting upon instructions of petitioner Montelibano, his co-petitioners thereupon cleared the land of the sugarcane planted therein by Benares. Hence, the criminal complaint filed by the latter. The Municipal Court denied the aforementioned motion to quash said complaint and the warrant of arrest, as well as a subsequent motion for reconsideration, whereupon petitioners instituted the case at bar, in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 2828, against said Municipal Judge, and complainant Benares, for the purpose of securing a writ ofcertiorari and mandamus annulling and vacating all the proceedings so far taken by respondent Judge in said Case no. 2864 and holding that said Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same and dismissing said case with a writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining respondent judge to desist from further proceedings in the case. The writ of preliminary injunction was issued by said court of first instance, which, in due course, eventually rendered a decision, dismissing the petition for certiorari and mandamus, and dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction, with costs against the petitioners. The case is now before us on appeal taken, from said decision, by the aforementioned petitioners, the defendants in said criminal case. It is not disputed that the complaint in question was filed by Benares directly with the municipal court of Bacolod, and that the City Attorney had, not only no intervention whatsoever therein, but, also, expressed, in open court, his

opposition thereto. The issue boils down to whether said municipal court may entertain said complaint. Petitioners contend that it may not, relying upon section 22 of Commonwealth Act No. 326, otherwise known as the Charter of the City of Bacolod, the pertinent part of which provides: . . . The City attorney . . . shall also have charge of the prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of city ordinances, in the Court of First Instance and the Municipal Court of the city, and shall discharge all the duties in respect to criminal prosecutions enjoined by law upon provincial fiscals. The city attorney shall cause to be investigated all charges of crimes, misdemeanors, and violation of ordinances, and have the necessary informations or complaints prepared or made against the persons accused. . . .. Upon the other hand, respondents argue that this provision is merely declaratory of the powers of the City Attorney of Bacolod and does not preclude the application of Sec. 2 of Rule 106 of the Rules of Court reading: Complaint is a sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer or other employees of the government or governmental institution in charge of the enforcement or execution of the law violated. This was the very same provision invoked by the petitioner in the case of Espiritu vs. Dela Rosa (45 O.G. 196), in which this Court refused to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Court of First Instance of Manila to accept a complaint filed, directly with said court, by the offended party in a given case, without the intervention of the City Fiscal of Manila. In his concurring opinion therein, then Chief Justice Moran had the following to say: I concur upon the ground that Rule 108 section 4 does not apply in the City of Manila where the only officer authorized by law to conduct preliminary investigation is the City Fiscal (sec. 2474, Adm. Code) and therefore, all criminal complaints should be filed with that officer who in turn may, after investigation, file the corresponding information with the Court of First Instance. The provisions of the Administrative Code on this matter have not been repealed by the Rules of Court. (Hashim vs. Boncan, 40 O.G. p. 13.) (Emphasis supplied.) As indicated in said decision, the same was based, partly, upon the rule laid down in Hashim vs. Boncan (71 Phil. 216), which, in turn, was predicated upon earlier precedents (U. S. vs. Wilson, 4 Phil. 317; U. S. vs. McGovern, 6 Phil. 621; U. S. vs. Ocampo, 18 Phil. 1; U. S. vs. Grant and Kennedy, 18 Phil. 122; U. S. vs. Carlos, 21 Phil. 553). In case of Sayo vs. Chief of Police (45 O.G. 4875) the language used by this Court was: Under the law, a complaint charging a person with the commission of an offense cognizable by the courts of Manila is not filed with the municipal court of First Instance of Manila, because as above stated, the latter do not make or conduct a preliminary investigation proper. The complaint must be made or filed with the city fiscal of Manila who, personally or through one of his assistance, makes the investigation, not for the purpose of ordering the arrest of the accused, but of filing with the proper court the necessary information against the accused if the result of the investigation so warrants, and obtaining from the court a warrant of arrest or commitment of the accused. xxxxxxxxx In the City of Manila, where complaints are not filed directly with the municipal court or the Court of First Instance, the officer or person making the arrest without warrant shall surrender or take the person arrested to the city fiscal, and the latter shall make the investigation abovementioned and file, if proper, the corresponding information without the time prescribed by section 125 of the Revised Penal Code, so that the court may issue a warrant of commitment for the temporary detention of the accused. . . .. (Emphasis supplied.) It is clear, therefore, that, in the City of Manila, criminal complaints may be filed only with the City Fiscal, who is thereby given, by implication, the exclusive authority to institute criminal cases in the different courts of said city, under the provisions of its Charter, originally found in Section 39 of Act the pertinent part of which we quote: . . . The prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila shall have charge of the prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of city ordinances, in the Court of First Instance and the municipal courts of the city of Manila. He shall investigate all charges of crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of ordinances, and prepare the necessary informations or make the necessary complaints against the persons accused, and discharge all other duties in respect to criminal prosecutions enjoined upon provincial fiscals . . .. This provision was mutatis mutandis reproduced, firstly, in section 2437 of the Old Administrative Code (Act No. 2657), then in section 2465 of the Revised Administrative Code, and lastly in section 38 of Republic Act no. 409. We do not see, and respondents herein have not pointed out, any reason why the above quoted provision of the Charter of the City of Bacolod, should be interpreted differently from said sections of the Charter of the City of Manila, which are

substantially identical thereto. On the contrary, considering that said provisions of the Charter of the City of Manila had been consistently construed in the manner above indicated, before being incorporated in the Charter of the City of Bacolod, the conclusion is inevitable that the framers of the latter had reproduced the former with intent of adopting, also its settled interpretation by the judicial department (In re Dick, 38 Phil. 41, 77). In the interpretation of reenacted statutes the court will follow the construction which they received when previously in force. The legislature will be presumed to know the effect which such status originally had, and by reenactment to intend that they should again have the same effect. . . . It is not necessary that a statute should be reenacted in identical words in order that the rule may apply. It is sufficient if it is reenacted in substantially the same words. . . . The rule has been held to apply to the reenactment of a statute which received a practical construction on the part of those who are called upon to execute it. The Supreme Court of Nebraska says : Where the legislature in framing an act resorts to language similar in its import to the language of other acts which have received a practical construction by the executive departments and by the legislature itself, it is fair to presume that the language was used in the later act with a view to the construction so given the earlier. . . . (Sutherland Statutory Construction, Vol. II, 2d. ed., section 403 . . . two statutes with a parallel scope, purpose and terminology should, each in its own field, have a like interpretation, unless in particular instances there is something peculiar in the question under consideration, or dissimilar in the terms of the act relating thereto, requiring a different conclusion. (50 Am. Jur. 343) . . . Since it may be presumed that the legislature knew a construction, long acquieced in, which had been given by the courts to a statute re-enacted by the legislature, there is a presumption of an intention to adopt the construction as well as the language of the prior enactment. It is accordingly a settled rule of statutory construction that when a statute or a clause or provision thereof has been construed by a court of last resort, and the same is substantially re-enacted, the legislature may be regarded as adopting such construction. (50 Am. Jur. 461) In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from must be, as it is hereby, reversed and another one shall be entered annulling the warrant of arrest issued by respondent Judge and enjoining the latter to refrain from entertaining the complaint aforementioned and to dismiss the same. With cost against respondent Jose F. Benares. It is so ordered. AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY V. CITY OF MANILA Plaintiff-appellant is a foreign, non-stock, non-profit, religious, missionary corporation duly registered and doing business in the Philippines through its Philippine agency established in Manila in November, 1898, with its principal office at 636 Isaac Peral in said City. The defendant appellee is a municipal corporation with powers that are to be exercised in conformity with the provisions of Republic Act No. 409, known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila. In the course of its ministry, plaintiffs Philippine agency has been distributing and selling bibles and/or gospel portions thereof (except during the Japanese occupation) throughout the Philippines and translating the same into several Philippine dialects. On May 29 1953, the acting City Treasurer of the City of Manila informed plaintiff that it was conducting the business of general merchandise since November, 1945, without providing itself with the necessary Mayors permit and municipal license, in violation of Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, and Ordinances Nos. 2529, 3028 and 3364, and required plaintiff to secure, within three days, the corresponding permit and license fees, together with compromise covering the period from the 4th quarter of 1945 to the 2nd quarter of 1953, in the total sum of P5,821.45 (Annex A). Plaintiff protested against this requirement, but the City Treasurer demanded that plaintiff deposit and pay under protest the sum of P5,891.45, if suit was to be taken in court regarding the same (Annex B). To avoid the closing of its business as well as further fines and penalties in the premises on October 24, 1953, plaintiff paid to the defendant under protest the said permit and license fees in the aforementioned amount, giving at the same time notice to the City Treasurer that suit would be taken in court to question the legality of the ordinances under which, the said fees were being collected (Annex C), which was done on the same date by filing the complaint that gave rise to this action. In its complaint plaintiff prays that judgment be rendered declaring the said Municipal Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, and Ordinances Nos. 2529, 3028 and 3364 illegal and unconstitutional, and that the defendant be ordered to refund to the plaintiff the sum of P5,891.45 paid under protest, together with legal interest thereon, and the costs, plaintiff further praying for such other relief and remedy as the court may deem just equitable. Defendant answered the complaint, maintaining in turn that said ordinances were enacted by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila by virtue of the power

granted to it by section 2444, subsection (m-2) of the Revised Administrative Code, superseded on June 18, 1949, by section 18, subsection (1) of Republic Act No. 409, known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila, and praying that the complaint be dismissed, with costs against plaintiff. This answer was replied by the plaintiff reiterating the unconstitutionality of the often-repeated ordinances. Before trial the parties submitted the following stipulation of facts: COME NOW the parties in the above-entitled case, thru their undersigned attorneys and respectfully submit the following stipulation of facts: 1. That the plaintiff sold for the use of the purchasers at its principal office at 636 Isaac Peral, Manila, Bibles, New Testaments, bible portions and bible concordance in English and other foreign languages imported by it from the United States as well as Bibles, New Testaments and bible portions in the local dialects imported and/or purchased locally; that from the fourth quarter of 1945 to the first quarter of 1953 inclusive the sales made by the plaintiff were as follows: __ 2. That the parties hereby reserve the right to present evidence of other facts not herein stipulated. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this case be set for hearing so that the parties may present further evidence on their behalf. (Record on Appeal, pp. 1516). When the case was set for hearing, plaintiff proved, among other things, that it has been in existence in the Philippines since 1899, and that its parent society is in New York, United States of America; that its, contiguous real properties located at Isaac Peral are exempt from real estate taxes; and that it was never required to pay any municipal license fee or tax before the war, nor does the American Bible Society in the United States pay any license fee or sales tax for the sale of bible therein. Plaintiff further tried to establish that it never made any profit from the sale of its bibles, which are disposed of for as low as one third of the cost, and that in order to maintain its operating cost it obtains substantial remittances from its New York office and voluntary contributions and gifts from certain churches, both in the United States and in the Philippines, which are interested in its missionary work. Regarding plaintiffs contention of lack of profit in the sale of bibles, defendant retorts that the admissions of plaintiff-appellants lone witness who testified on cross-examination that bibles bearing the price of 70 cents each from plaintiff-appellants New York office are sold here by plaintiffappellant at P1.30 each; those bearing the price of $4.50 each are sold here at P10 each; those bearing the price of $7 each are sold here at P15 each; and those bearing the price of $11 each are sold here at P22 each, clearly show that plaintiffs contention that it never makes any profit from the sale of its bible, is evidently untenable. After hearing the Court rendered judgment, the last part of which is as follows: As may be seen from the repealed section (m-2) of the Revised Administrative Code and the repealing portions (o) of section 18 of Republic Act No. 409, although they seemingly differ in the way the legislative intent is expressed, yet their meaning is practically the same for the purpose of taxing the merchandise mentioned in said legal provisions, and that the taxes to be levied by said ordinances is in the nature of percentage graduated taxes (Sec. 3 of Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, and Sec. 1, Group 2, of Ordinance No. 2529, as amended by Ordinance No. 3364). IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, this Court is of the opinion and so holds that this case should be dismissed, as it is hereby dismissed, for lack of merits, with costs against the plaintiff. Not satisfied with this verdict plaintiff took up the matter to the Court of Appeals which certified the case to Us for the reason that the errors assigned to the lower Court involved only questions of law. Appellant contends that the lower Court erred: 1. In holding that Ordinances Nos. 2529 and 3000, as respectively amended, are not unconstitutional; 2. In holding that subsection m-2 of Section 2444 of the Revised Administrative Code under which Ordinances Nos. 2592 and 3000 were promulgated, was not repealed by Section 18 of Republic Act No. 409; 3. In not holding that an ordinance providing for taxes based on gross sales or receipts, in order to be valid under the new Charter of the City of Manila, must first be approved by the President of the Philippines; and 4. In holding that, as the sales made by the plaintiff-appellant have assumed commercial proportions, it cannot escape from the operation of said municipal ordinances under the cloak of religious privilege. The issues. As may be seen from the proceeding statement of the case, the issues involved in the present controversy may be reduced to the following: (1) whether or not the ordinances of the City of Manila, Nos. 3000, as amended, and 2529, 3028 and 3364, are constitutional and valid; and (2) whether the provisions of said ordinances are applicable or not to the case at bar.

Section 1, subsection (7) of Article III of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, provides that: (7) No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religion test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. Predicated on this constitutional mandate, plaintiff-appellant contends that Ordinances Nos. 2529 and 3000, as respectively amended, are unconstitutional and illegal in so far as its society is concerned, because they provide for religious censorship and restrain the free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession, to wit: the distribution and sale of bibles and other religious literature to the people of the Philippines. Before entering into a discussion of the constitutional aspect of the case, We shall first consider the provisions of the questioned ordinances in relation to their application to the sale of bibles, etc. by appellant. The records, show that by letter of May 29, 1953 (Annex A), the City Treasurer required plaintiff to secure a Mayors permit in connection with the societys alleged business of distributing and selling bibles, etc. and to pay permit dues in the sum of P35 for the period covered in this litigation, plus the sum of P35 for compromise on account of plaintiffs failure to secure the permit required by Ordinance No. 3000 of the City of Manila, as amended. This Ordinance is of general application and not particularly directed against institutions like the plaintiff, and it does not contain any provisions whatever prescribing religious censorship nor restraining the free exercise and enjoyment of any religious profession. Section 1 of Ordinance No. 3000 reads as follows: SEC. 1. PERMITS NECESSARY. It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to conduct or engage in any of the businesses, trades, or occupations enumerated in Section 3 of this Ordinance or other businesses, trades, or occupations for which a permit is required for the proper supervision and enforcement of existing laws and ordinances governing the sanitation, security, and welfare of the public and the health of the employees engaged in the business specified in said section 3 hereof, WITHOUT FIRST HAVING OBTAINED A PERMIT THEREFOR FROM THE MAYOR AND THE NECESSARY LICENSE FROM THE CITY TREASURER. The business, trade or occupation of the plaintiff involved in this case is not particularly mentioned in Section 3 of the Ordinance, and the record does not show that a permit is required therefor under existing laws and ordinances for the proper supervision and enforcement of their provisions governing the sanitation, security and welfare of the public and the health of the employees engaged in the business of the plaintiff. However, sections 3 of Ordinance 3000 contains item No. 79, which reads as follows: 79. All other businesses, trades or occupations not mentioned in this Ordinance, except those upon which the City is not empowered to license or to tax P5.00 Therefore, the necessity of the permit is made to depend upon the power of the City to license or tax said business, trade or occupation. As to the license fees that the Treasurer of the City of Manila required the society to pay from the 4th quarter of 1945 to the 1st quarter of 1953 in the sum of P5,821.45, including the sum of P50 as compromise, Ordinance No. 2529, as amended by Ordinances Nos. 2779, 2821 and 3028 prescribes the following: SEC. 1. FEES. Subject to the provisions of section 578 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila, as amended, there shall be paid to the City Treasurer for engaging in any of the businesses or occupations below enumerated, quarterly, license fees based on gross sales or receipts realized during the preceding quarter in accordance with the rates herein prescribed: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That a person engaged in any businesses or occupation for the first time shall pay the initial license fee based on the probable gross sales or receipts for the first quarter beginning from the date of the opening of the business as indicated herein for the corresponding business or occupation. x x x x x x x x x GROUP 2. Retail dealers in new (not yet used) merchandise, which dealers are not yet subject to the payment of any municipal tax, such as (1) retail dealers in general merchandise; (2) retail dealers exclusively engaged in the sale of . . . books, including stationery. x x x x x x x x x As may be seen, the license fees required to be paid quarterly in Section 1 of said Ordinance No. 2529, as amended, are not imposed directly upon any religious institution but upon those engaged in any of the business or occupations therein enumerated, such as retail dealers in general merchandise which, it is alleged, cover the business or occupation of selling bibles, books, etc. Chapter 60 of the Revised Administrative Code which includes section 2444, subsection (m-2) of said legal body, as amended by Act No. 3659, approved on December 8, 1929, empowers the Municipal Board of the City of Manila:

(M-2) To tax and fix the license fee on (a) dealers in new automobiles or accessories or both, and (b) retail dealers in new (not yet used) merchandise, which dealers are not yet subject to the payment of any municipal tax. For the purpose of taxation, these retail dealers shall be classified as (1) retail dealers in general merchandise, and (2) retail dealers exclusively engaged in the sale of (a) textiles . . . (e) books, including stationery, paper and office supplies, . . .: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That the combined total tax of any debtor or manufacturer, or both, enumerated under these subsections (m-1) and (m-2), whether dealing in one or all of the articles mentioned herein, SHALL NOT BE IN EXCESS OF FIVE HUNDRED PESOS PER ANNUM. and appellees counsel maintains that City Ordinances Nos. 2529 and 3000, as amended, were enacted in virtue of the power that said Act No. 3669 conferred upon the City of Manila. Appellant, however, contends that said ordinances are longer in force and effect as the law under which they were promulgated has been expressly repealed by Section 102 of Republic Act No. 409 passed on June 18, 1949, known as the Revised Manila Charter. Passing upon this point the lower Court categorically stated that Republic Act No. 409 expressly repealed the provisions of Chapter 60 of the Revised Administrative Code but in the opinion of the trial Judge, although Section 2444 (m-2) of the former Manila Charter and section 18 (o) of the new seemingly differ in the way the legislative intent was expressed, yet their meaning is practically the same for the purpose of taxing the merchandise mentioned in both legal provisions and, consequently, Ordinances Nos. 2529 and 3000, as amended, are to be considered as still in full force and effect uninterruptedly up to the present. Often the legislature, instead of simply amending the pre-existing statute, will repeal the old statute in its entirety and by the same enactment re-enact all or certain portions of the preexisting law. Of course, the problem created by this sort of legislative action involves mainly the effect of the repeal upon rights and liabilities which accrued under the original statute. Are those rights and liabilities destroyed or preserved? The authorities are divided as to the effect of simultaneous repeals and re-enactments. Some adhere to the view that the rights and liabilities accrued under the repealed act are destroyed, since the statutes from which they sprang are actually terminated, even though for only a very short period of time. Others, and they seem to be in the majority, refuse to accept this view of the situation, and consequently maintain that all rights an liabilities which have accrued under the original statute are preserved and may be enforced, since the re-enactment neutralizes the repeal, therefore, continuing the law in force without interruption. (Crawford-Statutory Construction, Sec. 322). Appellants counsel states that section 18 (o) of Republic Act No, 409 introduces a new and wider concept of taxation and is different from the provisions of Section 2444(m-2) that the former cannot be considered as a substantial reenactment of the provisions of the latter. We have quoted above the provisions of section 2444(m-2) of the Revised Administrative Code and We shall now copy hereunder the provisions of Section 18, subdivision (o) of Republic Act No. 409, which reads as follows: (o) To tax and fix the license fee on dealers in general merchandise, including importers and indentors, except those dealers who may be expressly subject to the payment of some other municipal tax under the provisions of this section. Dealers in general merchandise shall be classified as (a) wholesale dealers and (b) retail dealers. For purposes of the tax on retail dealers, general merchandise shall be classified into four main classes: namely (1) luxury articles, (2) semi-luxury articles, (3) essential commodities, and (4) miscellaneous articles. A separate license shall be prescribed for each class but where commodities of different classes are sold in the same establishment, it shall not be compulsory for the owner to secure more than one license if he pays the higher or highest rate of tax prescribed by ordinance. Wholesale dealers shall pay the license tax as such, as may be provided by ordinance. For purposes of this section, the term General merchandise shall include poultry and livestock, agricultural products, fish and other allied products. The only essential difference that We find between these two provisions that may have any bearing on the case at bar, is that, while subsection (m-2) prescribes that the combined total tax of any dealer or manufacturer, or both, enumerated under subsections (m-1) and (m-2), whether dealing in one or all of the articles mentioned therein, shall not be in excess of P500 per annum, the corresponding section 18, subsection (o) of Republic Act No. 409, does not contain any limitation as to the amount of tax or license fee that the retail dealer has to pay per annum. Hence, and in accordance with the weight of the authorities above referred to that maintain that all rights and liabilities which have accrued under the original statute are preserved and may be enforced, since the reenactment neutralizes the repeal, therefore continuing the law in force without interruption, We hold that the questioned ordinances of the City of Manila are still in force and effect.

Plaintiff, however, argues that the questioned ordinances, to be valid, must first be approved by the President of the Philippines as per section 18, subsection (ii) of Republic Act No. 409, which reads as follows: (ii) To tax, license and regulate any business, trade or occupation being conducted within the City of Manila, not otherwise enumerated in the preceding subsections, including percentage taxes based on gross sales or receipts, subject to the approval of the PRESIDENT, except amusement taxes. but this requirement of the Presidents approval was not contained in section 2444 of the former Charter of the City of Manila under which Ordinance No. 2529 was promulgated. Anyway, as stated by appellees counsel, the business of retail dealers in general merchandise is expressly enumerated in subsection (o), section 18 of Republic Act No. 409; hence, an ordinance prescribing a municipal tax on said business does not have to be approved by the President to be effective, as it is not among those referred to in said subsection (ii). Moreover, the questioned ordinances are still in force, having been promulgated by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila under the authority granted to it by law. The question that now remains to be determined is whether said ordinances are inapplicable, invalid or unconstitutional if applied to the alleged business of distribution and sale of bibles to the people of the Philippines by a religious corporation like the American Bible Society, plaintiff herein. With regard to Ordinance No. 2529, as amended by Ordinances Nos. 2779, 2821 and 3028, appellant contends that it is unconstitutional and illegal because it restrains the free exercise and enjoyment of the religious profession and worship of appellant. Article III, section 1, clause (7) of the Constitution of the Philippines aforequoted, guarantees the freedom of religious profession and worship. Religion has been spoken of as a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to its Creator (Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201).It has reference to ones views of his relations to His Creator and to the obligations they impose of reverence to His being and character, and obedience to His Will (Davis vs. Beason, 133 U.S. 342). The constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious information. Any restraints of such right can only be justified like other restraints of freedom of expression on the grounds that there is a clear and present danger of any substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent. (Taada and Fernando on the Constitution of the Philippines, Vol. 1, 4th ed., p. 297). In the case at bar the license fee herein involved is imposed upon appellant for its distribution and sale of bibles and other religious literature: In the case of Murdock vs. Pennsylvania, it was held that an ordinance requiring that a license be obtained before a person could canvass or solicit orders for goods, paintings, pictures, wares or merchandise cannot be made to apply to members of Jehovahs Witnesses who went about from door to door distributing literature and soliciting people to purchase certain religious books and pamphlets, all published by the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. The price of the books was twenty-five cents each, the price of the pamphlets five cents each. It was shown that in making the solicitations there was a request for additional contribution of twenty-five cents each for the books and five cents each for the pamphlets. Lesser sum were accepted, however, and books were even donated in case interested persons were without funds. On the above facts the Supreme Court held that it could not be said that petitioners were engaged in commercial rather than a religious venture. Their activities could not be described as embraced in the occupation of selling books and pamphlets. Then the Court continued: We do not mean to say that religious groups and the press are free from all financial burdens of government. See Grosjean vs. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 250, 80 L. ed. 660, 668, 56 S. Ct. 444. We have here something quite different, for example, from a tax on the income of one who engages in religious activities or a tax on property used or employed in connection with activities. It is one thing to impose a tax on the income or property of a preacher. It is quite another to exact a tax from him for the privilege of delivering a sermon. The tax imposed by the City of Jeannette is a flat license tax, payment of which is a condition of the exercise of these constitutional privileges. The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment. . . . Those who can tax the exercise of this religious practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance. Those who can tax the privilege of engaging in this form of missionary evangelism can close all its doors to all those who do not have a full purse. Spreading religious beliefs in this ancient and honorable manner would thus be denied the needy. . . . It is contended however that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights . . . The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedom is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court

has repeatedly struck down. . . . It is not a nominal fee imposed as a regulatory measure to defray the expenses of policing the activities in question. It is in no way apportioned. It is flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the constitutional liberties of press and religion and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. That is almost uniformly recognized as the inherent vice and evil of this flat license tax. Nor could dissemination of religious information be conditioned upon the approval of an official or manager even if the town were owned by a corporation as held in the case of Marsh vs. State of Alabama (326 U.S. 501), or by the United States itself as held in the case of Tucker vs. Texas (326 U.S. 517). In the former case the Supreme Court expressed the opinion that the right to enjoy freedom of the press and religion occupies a preferred position as against the constitutional right of property owners. When we balance the constitutional rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy freedom of press and religion, as we must here, we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position. . . . In our view the circumstance that the property rights to the premises where the deprivation of property here involved, took place, were held by others than the public, is not sufficient to justify the States permitting a corporation to govern a community of citizens so as to restrict their fundamental liberties and the enforcement of such restraint by the application of a State statute. (Taada and Fernando on the Constitution of the Philippines, Vol. 1, 4th ed., p. 304-306). Section 27 of Commonwealth Act No. 466, otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code, provides: SEC. 27. EXEMPTIONS FROM TAX ON CORPORATIONS. The following organizations shall not be taxed under this Title in respect to income received by them as such (e) Corporations or associations organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, . . . or educational purposes, . . .: Provided, however, That the income of whatever kind and character from any of its properties, real or personal, or from any activity conducted for profit, regardless of the disposition made of such income, shall be liable to the tax imposed under this Code; Appellants counsel claims that the Collector of Internal Revenue has exempted the plaintiff from this tax and says that such exemption clearly indicates that the act of distributing and selling bibles, etc. is purely religious and does not fall under the above legal provisions. It may be true that in the case at bar the price asked for the bibles and other religious pamphlets was in some instances a little bit higher than the actual cost of the same but this cannot mean that appellant was engaged in the business or occupation of selling said merchandise for profit. For this reason We believe that the provisions of City of Manila Ordinance No. 2529, as amended, cannot be applied to appellant, for in doing so it would impair its free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession and worship as well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs. With respect to Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, which requires the obtention the Mayors permit before any person can engage in any of the businesses, trades or occupations enumerated therein, We do not find that it imposes any charge upon the enjoyment of a right granted by the Constitution, nor tax the exercise of religious practices. In the case of Coleman vs. City of Griffin, 189 S.E. 427, this point was elucidated as follows: An ordinance by the City of Griffin, declaring that the practice of distributing either by hand or otherwise, circulars, handbooks, advertising, or literature of any kind, whether said articles are being delivered free, or whether same are being sold within the city limits of the City of Griffin, without first obtaining written permission from the city manager of the City of Griffin, shall be deemed a nuisance and punishable as an offense against the City of Griffin, does not deprive defendant of his constitutional right of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, even though it prohibits him from introducing and carrying out a scheme or purpose which he sees fit to claim as a part of his religious system. It seems clear, therefore, that Ordinance No. 3000 cannot be considered unconstitutional, even if applied to plaintiff Society. But as Ordinance No. 2529 of the City of Manila, as amended, is not applicable to plaintiff-appellant and defendant-appellee is powerless to license or tax the business of plaintiff Society involved herein for, as stated before, it would impair plaintiffs right to the free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession and worship, as well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs, We find that Ordinance No. 3000, as amended is also inapplicable to said business, trade or occupation of the plaintiff. Wherefore, and on the strength of the foregoing considerations, We hereby reverse the decision appealed from, sentencing defendant return to plaintiff the sum of P5,891.45 unduly collected from it. Without pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.

ABS-CBN V. CA This is a Petition for Review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 2809, dated November 29, 1979, which affirmed the assessment by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, dated April 16, 1971, of a deficiency withholding income tax against petitioner, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, for the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 in the respective amounts of P75,895.24, P99,239.18, P128,502.00 and P222, 260.64, or a total of P525,897.06. During the period pertinent to this case, petitioner corporation was engaged in the business of telecasting local as well as foreign films acquired from foreign corporations not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines. for which petitioner paid rentals after withholding income tax of 30%of one-half of the film rentals. In so far as the income tax on non-resident corporations is concerned, section 24 (b) of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 2343 dated June 20, 1959, used to provide: (b) Tax on foreign corporations. (1) Non-resident corporations.? There shall be levied, collected, and paid for each taxable year, in lieu of the tax imposed by the preceding paragraph, upon the amount received by every foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines, from an sources within the Philippines, as interest, dividends, rents, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits, and income, a tax equal to thirty per centum of such amount. (Emphasis supplied) On April 12, 1961, in implementation of the aforequoted provision, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued General Circular No. V-334 reading thus: In connection with Section 24 (b) of Tax Code, the amendment introduced by Republic Act No. 2343, under which an income tax equal to 30% is levied upon the amount received by every foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines from all sources within this country as interest, dividends, rents, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits, and income, it has been determined that the tax is still imposed on income derived from capital, or labor, or both combined, in accordance with the basic principle of income taxation (Sec. 39, Income Tax Regulations), and that a mere return of capital or investment is not income (Par. 5,06, 1 Mertens Law of Federal Taxation). Since according to the findings of the Special Team who inquired into business of the non-resident foreign film distributors, the distribution or exhibition right on a film is invariably acquired for a consideration, either for a lump sum or a percentage of the film rentals, whether from a parent company or an independent outside producer, apart of the receipts of a nonresident foreign film distributor derived from said film represents, therefore, a return of investment. xxx xxx xxx 4. The local distributor should withhold 30% of one-half of the film rentals paid to the non-resident foreign film distributor and pay the same to this office in accordance with law unless the non- resident foreign film distributor makes a prior settlement of its income tax liability. (Emphasis ours). Pursuant to the foregoing, petitioner dutifully withheld and turned over to the Bureau of Internal Revenue the amount of 30% of one-half of the film rentals paid by it to foreign corporations not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines. The last year that petitioner withheld taxes pursuant to the foregoing Circular was in 1968. On June 27, 1968, Republic Act No. 5431 amended Section 24 (b) of the Tax Code increasing the tax rate from 30 % to 35 % and revising the tax basis from such amount referring to rents, etc. to gross income, as follows: (b) Tax on foreign corporations.?(1) Non-resident corporations.?A foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines including a foreign life insurance company not engaged in the life insurance business in the Philippines shall pay a tax equal to thirty-five per cent of the gross income received during each taxable year from all sources within the Philippines, as interests, dividends, rents, royalties, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations for technical services or otherwise, emoluments or other fixed or determinable annual, periodical or casual gains, profits, and income, and capital gains, Provided however, That premiums shah not include reinsurance premiums. (Emphasis supplied) On February 8, 1971, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 4-71, revoking General Circular No. V-334, and holding that the latter was erroneous for lack of legal basis, because the tax therein prescribed should be based on gross income without deduction whatever, thus:

After a restudy and analysis of Section 24 (b) of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 5431, and guided by the interpretation given by tax authorities to a similar provision in the Internal Revenue Code of the United States, on which the aforementioned provision of our Tax Code was patterned, this Office has come to the conclusion that the tax therein prescribed should be based on gross income without t deduction whatever. Consequently, the ruling in General Circular No. V-334, dated April 12, 1961, allowing the deduction of the proportionate cost of production or exhibition of motion picture films from the rental income of non- resident foreign corporations, is erroneous for lack of legal basis. In view thereof, General Circular No. V-334, dated April 12, 1961, is hereby revoked and henceforth, local films distributors and exhibitors shall deduct and withhold 35% of the entire amount payable by them to non-resident foreign corporations, as film rental or royalty, or whatever such payment may be denominated, without any deduction whatever, pursuant to Section 24 (b), and pay the withheld taxes in accordance with Section 54 of the Tax Code, as amended. All rulings inconsistent with this Circular is likewise revoked. (Emphasis ours) On the basis of this new Circular, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued against petitioner a letter of assessment and demand dated April 15, 1971, but allegedly released by it and received by petitioner on April 12, 1971, requiring them to pay deficiency withholding income tax on the remitted film rentals for the years 1965 through 1968 and film royalty as of the end of 1968 in the total amount of P525,897.06 computed as follows: -On May 5, 1971, petitioner requested for a reconsideration and withdrawal of the assessment. However, without acting thereon, respondent, on April 6, 1976, issued a warrant of distraint and levy over petitioners personal as well as real properties. The petitioner then filed its Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals whose Decision, dated November 29, 1979, is, in turn, the subject of this review. The Tax Court held: For the reasons given, the Court finds the assessment issued by respondent on April 16, 1971 against petitioner in the amounts of P75,895.24, P 99,239.18, P128,502.00 and P222,260.64 or a total of P525,897.06 as deficiency withholding income tax for the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968, respectively, in accordance with law. As prayed for, the petition for review filed in this case is dismissed, and petitioner ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation is hereby ordered to pay the sum of P525,897.06 to respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue as deficiency withholding income tax for the taxable years 1965 thru 1968, plus the surcharge and interest which have accrued thereon incident to delinquency pursuant to Section 51 (e) of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed at petitioners cost. SO ORDERED.[[2]] The issues raised are two-fold: I. Whether or not respondent can apply General Circular No. 4-71 retroactively and issue a deficiency assessment against petitioner in the amount of P 525,897.06 as deficiency withholding income tax for the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968. II. Whether or not the right of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to assess the deficiency withholding income tax for the year 196,5 has prescribed.[[3]] Upon the facts and circumstances of the case, review is warranted. In point is Sec. 338-A (now Sec. 327) of the Tax Code. As inserted by Republic Act No. 6110 on August 9, 1969, it provides: Sec. 338-A. Non-retroactivity of rulings. Any revocation, modification, or reversal of and of the rules and regulations promulgated in accordance with the preceding section or any of the rulings or circulars promulgated by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall not be given retroactive application if the relocation, modification, or reversal will be prejudicial to the taxpayers, except in the following cases: (a) where the taxpayer deliberately mis-states or omits material facts from his return or any document required of him by the Bureau of Internal Revenue: (b) where the facts subsequently gathered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue are materially different from the facts on which the ruling is based; or (c) where the taxpayer acted in bad faith. (italics for emphasis) It is clear from the foregoing that rulings or circulars promulgated by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue have no retroactive application where to so apply them would be prejudicial to taxpayers. The prejudice to petitioner of the retroactive application of Memorandum Circular No. 4-71 is beyond question. It was issued only in 1971, or three years after 1968, the last year that petitioner had withheld taxes under General Circular No. V-334. The assessment and demand on petitioner to pay deficiency withholding income tax was also made three years after 1968 for a period of time commencing in 1965. Petitioner was no longer in a position to withhold taxes due from foreign corporations because it had already remitted all film rentals and no longer had

any control over them when the new Circular was issued. And in so far as the enumerated exceptions are concerned, admittedly, petitioner does not fall under any of them. Respondent claims, however, that the provision on non-retroactivity is inapplicable in the present case in that General Circular No. V-334 is a nullity because in effect, it changed the law on the matter. The Court of Tax Appeals sustained this position holding that: Deductions are wholly and exclusively within the power of Congress or the law-making body to grant, condition or deny; and where the statute imposes a tax equal to a specified rate or percentage of the gross or entire amount received by the taxpayer, the authority of some administrative officials to modify or change, much less reduce, the basis or measure of the tax should not be read into law.**4]]Therefore, the Tax Court concluded, petitioner did not acquire any vested right thereunder as the same was a nullity. The rationale behind General Circular No. V-334 was clearly stated therein, however: It ha(d) been determined that the tax is still imposed on income derived from capital, or labor, or both combined, in accordance with the basic principle of income taxation and that a mere return of capital or investment is not income . A part of the receipts of a non-resident foreign film distributor derived from said film represents, therefore, a return of investment. The Circular thus fixed the return of capital at 50% to simplify the administrative chore of determining the portion of the rentals covering the return of capital.**5]] Were the gross income base clear from Sec. 24 (b), perhaps, the ratiocination of the Tax Court could be upheld. It should be noted, however, that said Section was not too plain and simple to understand. The fact that the issuance of the General Circular in question was rendered necessary leads to no other conclusion than that it was not easy of comprehension and could be subjected to different interpretations. In fact, Republic Act No. 2343, dated June 20, 1959, supra, which was the basis of General Circular No. V-334, was just one in a series of enactments regarding Sec. 24 (b) of the Tax Code. Republic Act No. 3825 came next on June 22, 1963 without changing the basis but merely adding a proviso (in bold letters). (b) Tax on foreign corporation. (1) Non-resident corporations. There shall be levied, collected and paid for each taxable year, in lieu of the tax imposed by the preceding paragraph, upon the amount received by every foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines, from all sources within the Philippines, as interest, dividends, rents, salaries, wages, premiums annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits, and income, a tax equal to thirty per centum of such amount: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT PREMIUMS SHALL NOT INCLUDE REINSURANCE PREMIUMS. (double emphasis ours). Republic Act No. 3841, dated likewise on June 22, 1963, followed after, omitting the proviso and inserting some words (also in bold letters). (b) Tax on foreign corporations. (1) Non-resident corporations. There shall be levied, collected and paid for each taxable year, in lieu of the tax imposed by the preceding paragraph, upon the amount received by every foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines, from all sources within the Philippines, as interest, dividends, rents, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable annual or periodical OR CASUAL gains, profits and income, AND CAPITAL GAINS, a tax equal to thirty per centum of such amount.[[6]](double emphasis supplied) The principle of legislative approval of administrative interpretation by reenactment clearly obtains in this case. It provides that the re-enactment of a statute substantially unchanged is persuasive indication of the adoption by Congress of a prior executive construction.**7]] Note should be taken of the fact that this case involves not a mere opinion of the Commissioner or ruling rendered on a mere query, but a Circular formally issued to all internal revenue officials by the then Commissioner of Internal Revenue. It was only on June 27, 1968 under Republic Act No. 5431, supra, which became the basis of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 4-71, that Sec. 24 (b) was amended to refer specifically to 35% of the gross income. This Court is not unaware of the well-entrenched principle that the Government is never estopped from collecting taxes because of mistakes or errors on the part of its agents.[[8]] In fact, utmost caution should be taken in this regard.[[9]] But, like other principles of law, this also admits of exceptions in the interest of justice and fairplay. The insertion of Sec. 338-A into the National Internal Revenue Code, as held in the case of Tuason, Jr. vs. Lingad,[[10]] is indicative of legislative intention to support the principle of good faith. In fact, in the United States, from where Sec. 24 (b) was patterned, it has been held that the Commissioner of Collector is precluded from adopting a position inconsistent with one previously taken where injustice would result therefrom,[[11]] or where there has been a misrepresentation to the taxpayer.[[12]]

We have also noted that in its Decision, the Court of Tax Appeals further required the petitioner to pay interest and surcharge as provided for in Sec. 51 (e) of the Tax Code in addition to the deficiency withholding tax of P 525,897.06. This additional requirement is much less called for because the petitioner relied in good faith and religiously complied with no less than a Circular issued to all internal revenue officials by the highest official of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and approved by the then Secretary of Finance.[[13]] With the foregoing conclusions arrived at, resolution of the issue of prescription becomes unnecessary. WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Court of Tax Appeals is hereby reversed, and the questioned assessment set aside. No costs. SO ORDERED. ORTIZ V. COMELEC In this petition for certiorari, petitioner presents before the Court the issue of whether or not a constitutional official whose courtesy resignation was accepted by the President of the Philippines during the effectivity of the Freedom Constitution may be entitled to retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 1568, as amended. Petitioner was appointed Commissioner of the Commission on Elections *COMELEC+ by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos for a term expiring May 17, 1992. 1 He took his oath of office on July 30, 1985. On March 5, 1986, together with Commissioners Quirino D. Marquinez and Mangontawar G. Guro, petitioner sent President Corazon C. Aquino a letter which reads as follows: The undersigned Commissioners were appointed to the Commission on Elections on July 30, 1985. Following the example of Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court, on the premise that we have now a revolutionary government, we hereby place our position at your disposal. 2 Thereafter, or on March 25,1986, the Freedom Constitution was promulgated through Proclamation No. 3, Artide III thereof provides: SECTION 1. In the reorganization of the government, priority shall be given to measures to promote economy, efficiency, and the eradication of graft and corruption. SEC. 2. All elective and appointive officials and employees under the 1973 Constitution shall continue in office until otherwise provided by proclamation or executive order or upon the designation or appointment and qualification of their successors, if such is made within a period of one year from February 25, 1986. SEC. 3. Any public officer or employee separated from the service as a result of the reorganization effected under this Proclamation shall, if entitled under the laws then in force, receive the retirement and other benefits accruing thereunder. On April 16,1986, the COMELEC, then composed of Chairman Ramon H. Felipe, Jr. and Commissioners Froilan M. Bacungan, Quirino A. Marquinez, Mario D. Ortiz (petitioner herein), Ruben E. Agpalo and Jaime J. Layosa, adopted Resolution No. 86-2364 approving the application for retirement of Commissioners Victorino Savellano and Jaime Opinion. Seven days later, the same body passed Resolution No. 862370 approving the application for retirement of Commissioner Mangontawar B. Guro. On July 21, 1986, the Deputy Executive Secretary requested Acting Chairman Felipe to convey the information to Commissioners Marquinez, Ortiz, Agpalo and Layosa that the President had accepted, with regrets, their res pective resignations, effective immediately. 3 After the presidential acceptance of said resignations, the new COMELEC was composed of Ramon H. Felipe, Jr. as Chairman and Commissioners Froilan M. Bacungan, Leopoldo L. Africa, Haydee B. Yorac, Andres R. Flores, Dario C, Rama and Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr., as members. It was to this body that Commissioners Agpalo, Ortiz and Marquinez submitted on July 30, 1986 their respective applications for retirement. They were followed by Commissioner Layosa on August 1, 1986. To justify their petitions for retirement and their requests for payment of retirement benefits, all seven former COMELEC Commissioners invoked Republic Act No. l568 as amended by Republic Act No. 3595 and re-enacted by Republic Act No. 6118, specifically the following provision: SECTION 1. When the Auditor General or the Chairman or any Member of the Commission on Elections retires from the service for having completed his term of office or by reason of his incapacity to discharge the duties of his office, or dies while in the service, or resigns at any time after reaching the age of sixty years but before the expiration of his term of office, he or his heirs shall be paid in lump sum his salary for one year, not exceeding five years, for every year of service based upon the last annual salary that he was receiving at the time of retirement incapacity, death or resignation, as the case may be: Provided, That in

case of resignation, he has rendered not less than twenty years of service in the government; And provided, further, That he shall receive an annuity payable monthly during the residue of his natural life equivalent to the amount of monthly salary he was receiving on the date of retirement, incapacity or resignation. In its en banc Resolution No. 86-2491 * of August 13, 1986 4 the COMELEC revoked Resolutions Nos. 86-2364 dated April 16, 1986 and 86-2370 dated April 23, 1986, and denied the applications for retirement of Commissioners Marquinez, Agpalo, Ortiz and Layosa on the ground that they were not entitled to retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 1568, as amended without specifying the reason therefor. 5 Petitioner Ortiz moved for the reconsideration of said resolution, contending that he was entitled to the benefits under Republic Act No. 1568, as amended. He averred therein that he did not resign but simply placed his position at the disposal of the President; that he had in fact completed his term as Commissioner by the change in the term of *his+ office and eventual replacement, and that he was entitled to retirement benefits under the aforementioned law because Article 1186 of the Civil Code which states that the condition [with regard to an obligation] shall be deemed fulfilled when the obligor voluntarily prevents its fulfillment. He invoked the aforequoted provisions of Proclamation No. 3 and cited the cases of former Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino and Associate Justice Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr. who were allowed to retire by this Court and receive retirement benefits. 6 Petitioners letter/motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC in its en banc resolution of October 1, 1986. On December 18, 1986, petitioner appealed the denial of his claim to the Chairman of the Commission on Audit [COA]. In its memorandum dated January 15, 1987, the COA referred the matter to the COMELEC resident auditor for comment and recommendation. Having failed to receive any communication from the COA for some six months, on June 3, 1987, petitioner reiterated his appeal thereto. Again, the matter was referred to the COMELEC resident auditor with a request for immediate action thereon. A month later, or on July 9, 1987, petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari alleging that the COMELECs arbitrary and unjust denial of his claim for retirement benefits and of his subsequent motion for reconsideration constitutes grave and whimsical abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction which can only be remedied through the instant petition in the absence of an appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. 7 In his memorandum, however, petitioner admits that, as correctly stated by the Solicitor General in respondents comment on the petition, this petition is basically one for a writ of mandamus aimed at compelling both the COMELEC and the COA to approve his claim for retirement benefits. 8 We consider this case as a special civil action of both certiorari and mandamus and, notwithstanding the Solicitor Generals contention that action herein is premature as the COA may yet render a decision favorable to the petitioner, We opt to decide this case to shed light on the legal issue presented. The respondents posit the view that petitioners voluntary resignation prevented the completion of his term of office, and, therefore, having rendered only sixteen years of service to the government, he is not entitled to retirement benefits. 9 We disagree. Petitioners separation from government service as a result of the reorganization ordained by the then nascent Aquino government may not be considered a resignation within the contemplation of the law. Resignation is defined as the act of giving up or the act of an officer by which he declines his office and renounces the further right to use it. 10 To constitute a complete and operative act of resignation, the officer or employee must show a clear intention to relinquish or surrender his position accompanied by the act of relinquishment. 11 Resignation implies an expression of the incumbent in some form, express or implied, of the intention to surrender, renounce and relinquish the office, and its acceptance by competent and lawful authority. 12 From the foregoing it is evident that petitioners resignation lacks the element of clear intention to surrender his position. We cannot presume such intention from his statement in his letter of March 5, 1986 that he was placing his position at the disposal of the President. He did not categorically state therein that he was unconditionally giving up his position. It should be remembered that said letter was actually a response to Proclamation No. 1 which President Aquino issued on February 25,1986 when she called on all appointive public officials to tender their courtesy resignation as a first step to restore confidence in public administration. Verily, a courtesy resignation can lot properly be interpreted as resignation in the legal sense for it is not necessarily a reflection of a public officials intention to surrender his position. Rather, it manifests his submission to the will of the political authority and the appointing power.

A stringent interpretation of courtesy resignations must therefore be observed, particularly in cases involving constitutional officials like the petitioner whose removal from office entails an impeachment proceeding. 13 For even if working for the government is regarded as no more than a privilege, discharge for disloyalty or for doubt about loyalty may involve such legal rights as those in reputation and eligibility for other employment. 14 The curtailment of his term not being attributable to any voluntary act on the part of the petitioner, equity and justice demand that he should be deemed to have completed his term albeit much ahead of the date stated in his appointment paper. Petitioners case should be placed in the same category as that of an official holding a primarily confidential position whose tenure ends upon his superiors loss of confidence in him. His cessation from the service entails no removal but an expiration of his term. 15 As he is deemed to have completed his term of office, petitioner should be considered retired from the service. And, in the absence of proof that he has been found guilty of malfeasance or misfeasance in office or that there is a pending administrative case against him, petitioner is entitled to a life pension under Republic Act No. 1568 as amended and reenacted by Republic Act No. 6118. He is, therefore, protected by the mantle of the Freedom Constitution specifically Article III, Section 3 thereof which was in effect when he was replaced by the appointment and qualification of a new Commissioner. Parenthetically, to a public servant, pension is not a gratuity but rather a form of deferred compensation for services performed and his right thereto commences to vest upon his entry into the retirement system and becomes an enforceable obligation in court upon fulfillment of all conditions under which it is to be paid. 16 Similarly, retirement benefits receivable by public employees are valuable parts of the consideration for entrance into and continuation in public employment. 17 They serve a public purpose and a primary objective in establishing them is to induce able persons to enter and remain in public employment, and to render faithful and efficient service while so employed. 18 Worth noting is the fact that, as originally enacted, Republic Act No. 1568 required not less than twenty years of service in the government at the time of the retirement, death or resignation of the Auditor General or the Chairman and any Member of the COMELEC. The same length of service was required after Republic Act No. 3473 amended the law. However, Republic Act No. 3595 further amended Republic Act No. 1568 and the 20-year service requirement was mandated only in case of resignation of the public official covered by the law. Although Republic Act No. 1568, as amended, was inoperative and abolished in Section 9 of Republic Act No. 4968, it was re-enacted under Republic Act No. 6118. On the respondents assertion that the retirement law is clear and hence, there is no room for its interpretation, We reiterate the basic principle that, being remedial in character, a statute creating pensions should be liberally construed and administered in favor of the persons intended to be benefited thereby. 19 This is as it should be because the liberal approach aims to achieve the humanitarian purposes of the law in order that the efficiency, security, and wellbeing of government employees may be enhanced. 20 WHEREFORE, respondent Commission on Elections denial o f petitioners application for retirement benefits is hereby reversed and set aside. The Commission on Audit and other public offices concerned are directed to facilitate the processing and payment of petitioners retirement benefits. SO ORDERED. MECANO V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT Antonio A. Mecano, through a petition for certiorari, seeks to nullify the decision of the Commission on Audit (COA, for brevity) embodied in its 7th Indorsement, dated January 16, 1992, denying his claim for reimbursement under Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code (RAC), as amended, in the total amount of P40,831.00. Petitioner is a Director II of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). He was hospitalized for cholecystitis from March 26, 1990 to April 7, 1990, on account of which he incurred medical and hospitalization expenses, the total amount of which he is claiming from the COA. On May 11, 1990, in a memorandum to the NBI Director, Alfredo S. Lim (Director Lim, for brevity), he requested reimbursement for his expenses on the ground that he is entitled to the benefits under Section 699 1 of the RAC, the pertinent provisions of which read: Sec. 699. Allowances in case of injury, death, or sickness incurred in performance of duty. When a person in the service of the national government of a province, city, municipality or municipal district is so injured in the performance of duty as thereby to receive some actual physical hurt or wound, the proper Head of Department may direct that absence during any period of disability thereby occasioned shall be on full pay, though not more than six months, 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. xxx xxx xxx 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. Director Lim then forwarded petitioners claim, in a 1st Indorsement dated June 22, 1990, to the Secretary of Justice, along with the comment, bearing the same date, of Gerarda Galang, Chief, LED of the NBI, recommending favorable action thereof. Finding petitioners illness to be service-connected, the Committee on Physical Examination of the Department of Justice favorably recommended the payment of petitioners claim. However, then Undersecretary of Justice Silvestre H. Bello III, in a 4th Indorsement dated November 21, 1990, returned petitioners claim to Director Lim, having considered the statements of the Chairman of the COA in its 5th Indorsement dated 19 September 1990, to the effect that the RAC being relied upon was repealed by the Administrative Code of 1987. Petitioner then re-submitted his claim to Director Lim, with a copy of Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 2 dated April 26, 1991 of then Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon (Secretary Drilon, for brevity) 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. On May 10, 1991, Director Lim, under a 5th Indorsement transmitted anew Mecanos claim to then Undersecretary Bello for favorable consideration. Under a 6th Indorsement, dated July 2, 1991, Secretary Drilon forwarded petitioners claim to the COA Chairman, recommending payment of the same. COA Chairman Eufemio C. Domingo, in his 7th Indorsement of January 16, 1992, however, denied petitioners claim on the ground that 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, petitioners claim was returned by Undersecretary of Justice Eduardo Montenegro to Director Lim under a 9th Indorsement dated February 7, 1992, with the advice that petitioner elevate the matter to the Supreme Court if he so desires. On the sole issue of whether or not the Administrative Code of 1987 repealed or abrogated Section 699 of the RAC, this petition was brought for the consideration of this Court. Petitioner anchors his claim on Section 699 of the RAC, as amended, and on the aforementioned Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 of Secretary Drilon. He further maintains that in the event that a claim is filed with the Employees Compensation Commission, as suggested by respondent, he would still not be barred from filing a claim under the subject section. Thus, the resolution of whether or not there was a repeal of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 would decide the fate of petitioners claim for reimbursement. The COA, on the other hand, strongly maintains that the enactment of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Exec. Order No. 292) operated to revoke or supplant in its entirety the Revised Administrative Code of 1917. The COA claims that from the whereas clauses of the new Administrative Code, it can be gleaned that it was the intent of the legislature to repeal the old Code. Moreover, the COA questions the applicability of the aforesaid opinion of the Secretary of Justice in deciding the matter. Lastly, the COA contends that employment-related sickness, injury or death is adequately covered by the Employees Compensation Program under P.D. 626, such that to allow simultaneous recovery of benefits under both laws on account of the same contingency would be unfair and unjust to the Government. The question of whether a particular law has been repealed or not by a subsequent law is a matter of legislative intent. The lawmakers may expressly repeal a law by incorporating therein a repealing provision which expressly and specifically cites the particular law or laws, and portions thereof, that are intended to be repealed. 3 A declaration in a statute, usually in its repealing clause, that a particular and specific law, identified by its number or title, is repealed is an express repeal; all others are implied repeals. 4 In the case of the two Administrative Codes in question, the ascertainment of whether or not it was the intent of the legislature to supplant the old Code with the new Code partly depends on the scrutiny of the repealing clause of the new Code. This provision is found in Section 27, Book VII (Final Provisions) of the Administrative Code of 1987 which reads:

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? It is certainly not an express repealing clause because it fails to identify or designate the act or acts that are intended to be repealed. 5 Rather, it is an example of a general repealing provision, as stated in Opinion No. 73, S. 1991. It is a clause which predicates the intended repeal under the condition that substantial conflict must be found in existing and prior acts. The failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal any existing law, unless an irreconcilable inconcistency and repugnancy exist in the terms of the new and old laws. 6 This latter situation falls under the category of an implied repeal. Repeal by implication proceeds on the premise that where a statute 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. 7 Hence, before there can be a repeal, there must be a clear showing on the part of the lawmaker that the intent in enacting the new law was to abrogate the old one. The intention to repeal must be clear and manifest; 8 otherwise, at least, as a general rule, the later act is to be construed as a continuation of, and not a substitute for, the first act and will continue so far as the two acts are the same from the time of the first enactment. 9 There are two categories of repeal by implication. The first is 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. The second is 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. 10 Implied repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency takes place when the two statutes cover the same subject matter; they are so clearly inconsistent and incompatible with each other that they cannot be reconciled or harmonized; and both cannot be given effect, that is, that one law cannot be enforced without nullifying the other. 11 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. 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. However, the COA would have Us consider that the fact that Section 699 was not restated in the Administrative Code of 1987 meant that the same section had been repealed. It further maintained that to allow the particular provisions not restated in the new Code to continue in force argues against the Code itself. The COA anchored this argument on the whereas clause of the 1987 Code, which states: WHEREAS, the effectiveness of the Government will be enhanced by a new Administrative Code which incorporate in a unified document the major structural, functional and procedural principles and rules of governance; and xxx xxx xxx It argues, in effect, that what is contemplated is only one Code the Administrative Code of 1987. This contention is untenable. The fact that a later enactment may relate to the same subject matter as that of an earlier statute is not of itself sufficient to cause an implied repeal of the prior act, since the new statute may merely be cumulative or a continuation of the old one. 12 What is necessary is a manifest indication of legislative purpose to repeal. 13 We come now to the second category of repeal the enactment of a statute revising or codifying the former laws on the whole subject matter. This is only possible if the revised statute or code was intended to cover the whole subject to be a complete and perfect system in itself. It is the rule that a subsequent statute is deemed to repeal a prior law if the former revises the whole subject matter of the former statute. 14 When both intent and scope clearly evidence the idea of a repeal, then all parts and provisions of the prior act that are omitted from the revised act are deemed repealed. 15 Furthermore, before there can be an implied repeal under this category, it must be the clear intent of the legislature that the later act be the substitute to the prior act. 16 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. The COA challenges the weight that this opinion

carries in the determination of this controversy inasmuch as the body which had been entrusted with the implementation of this particular provision has already rendered its decision. The COA relied on the rule in administrative law enunciated in the case of Sison vs. Pangramuyen 17 that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion, the Court would be loathe to substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency entrusted with the enforcement and implementation of the law. This will not hold water. This principle is subject to limitations. Administrative decisions may be reviewed by the courts upon a showing that the decision is vitiated by fraud, imposition or mistake. 18 It has been held that Opinions of the Secretary and Undersecretary of Justice are material in the construction of statutes in pari materia. 19 Lastly, it is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that repeals of statutes by implication are not favored. 20 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. 21 This Court, in a case, explains the principle in detail as follows: Repeals by implication are not favored, and will not be decreed unless it is manifest that 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 passing a statute it was not intended to interfere with or abrogate any former law relating to some matter, unless the repugnancy between the two is not only irreconcilable, but also clear and convincing, and flowing necessarily from the language used, unless the later act fully embraces the subject matter of the earlier, or unless the reason for the earlier act is beyond peradventure renewed. Hence, every effort must be used to make all acts stand and if, by any reasonable construction, they can be reconciled, the later act will not operate as a repeal of the earlier. 22 Regarding respondents contention that recovery under this subject section shall bar the recovery of benefits under the Employees Compensation Program, the same cannot be upheld. The second sentence of Article 173, Chapter II, Title II (dealing on Employees Compensation and State Insurance Fund), Book IV of the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. 1921, expressly provides that the payment of compensation under this Title shall not bar the recovery of benefits as provided for in Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code . . . whose benefits are administered by the system (meaning SSS or GSIS) or by other agencies of the government. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to GRANT the petition; respondent is hereby ordered to give due course to petitioners claim for benefits. No costs.

REPEALS
US V. SOLIMAN The evidence of record conclusively discloses that the defendant and appellant in this case, Gabino Soliman, testifying in his on behalf in the course of another criminal case in which he, with several others, was charged with estafa, swore falsely to certain material allegations of fact. On that occasion he testified falsely that a sworn statement offered in evidence in support of the charge of estafa, which was in effect an extrajudicial confession of his guilt, had not been executed voluntarily, and that its execution had not been procured by the police by the use of force, intimidation and prolonged torture. The trial judge who presided in the former case acquitted the accused on the ground that there was room for reasonable doubt as to whether the extrajudicial confession had been made voluntarily, and his action in this regard clearly establishes the materiality of the false testimony submitted in that case; moreover, the materiality of the evidence is manifest without considering the judgment in the case in which it was submitted, since, if accepted as true, this false testimony necessarily had the effect of rendering wholly incompetent the evidence as to the extrajudicial confession which otherwise would almost conclusively sustain and necessitate a conviction. (U. S. vs. Estraa, 16 Phil. Rep., 520.) There can be no doubt that the accused was guilty of the crime of perjury as defined and penalized in section 3 of Act No. 1697 and that the sentence of six months imprisonment and P300 fine imposed by the trial judge was correctly imposed under the provisions of that statute. It appears however that since judgment was entered in this case on November 23, 1915, section 3 of Act No. 1697 has been expressly repealed by the enactment of the Administrative Code, which became effective on July 1, 1916, and it has been suggested that the judgment convicting and sentencing the accused under the provisions of that statute should not be sustained, and that the repeal of the statute should be held to have the effect of remitting and extinguishing the criminal responsibility of the accused incurred under the

provisions of the repealed law prior to the enactment of the Administrative Code. We cannot agree with the proposition thus stated. In the case of United States vs. Cuna (12 Phil. Rep., 241), we held as follows: The rule of interpretation of English and American common law, by virtue of which the repeal of a law prescribing penalties is held to have the effect of remitting or extinguishing any penalty, loss of rights or responsibility incurred under such law, as to all persons who have not been convicted and sentenced under the provisions of such law prior to the enactment of the repealing law, is not and has not been the accepted doctrine in these Islands. Where an Act of the Commission or of the Philippine Legislature which penalizes an offense, such repeal does not have the effect of thereafter depriving the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence offenders charged with violations of the old law prior to its repeal. A question does arise, however, as to the penalty which should be impose upon the convict. If the repealing statute provides or has the effect of providing new penalties for the commission of the acts penalized under the repealed statute, should the penalty be imposed in accordance with the old or the new statute? Article 1 of the Penal Code in force in these Islands defines crimes and misdemeanors as voluntary acts or omissions penalized by law; and complementary to this provision, article 21 provides that no crime or misdemeanor shall be punished with a penalty which has not been prescribed by law prior to its commission. In accordance with these provisions the question whether an act is punishable or not depends upon the question whether or not at the time of its commission, there was a law in force which penalized it; this rule being modified, however, by article 22 of the same code, which provides that penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor persons convicted of a crime or misdemeanor. The courts of Spain and the learned commentators on Spanish law have construed these provisions to mean that such penal laws are to be given a retroactive effect only in so far as they favor the defendant charged with a crime or a misdemeanor, and that, when a penal law is enacted repealing a prior law, such repeal does not have the effect of relieving an offender in whole or in part of penalties already incurred under the old law, unless the new law favors the defendant by diminishing the penalty or doing away with it altogether, and then only to the extent to which the new law is favorable to the offender. In other words, that the enactment of new penal laws, notwithstanding the fact that they contain general repealing clauses, doe not deprive the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence persons charged with violations of the old law prior to the date when the repealing law goes into effect, unless the new law wholly fails to penalties the acts which constituted the offense defined and penalized in the repealed law. Thus Pacheco, commenting upon the new Penal Code of 1848-1850, of which article 506 provided that all general penal laws were repealed by its publication, says: At this time when the Penal Code is being put into effect and given force, we have in fact two criminal laws in Spain, and close attention is necessary to apply them properly. There may be prosecutions which it is necessary to dismiss, as, for example, those for sodomy; others which it may be necessary to decide in conformity with the provisions of the new codes, as, for example, those for carrying concealed weapons; and others which must be judged in accordance with the old provisions, as, for example. many cases of robbery. The rules of procedure in one or other manner being furnished us by the former article (article 19 of the Penal Code of Spain identical with article 21 of the Penal Code of the Philippines), and the present article (article 20 of the Penal Code of Spain and article 22 of the Philippine Code). Has the code increased the penalty? Then it is not applicable to crimes committed prior to its enactment. Has it extinguished or diminished them? Then it is clearly applicable to them. (1 Pacheco, 296.) And a similar construction was placed upon the provisions of the Penal Code of 1870 by the supreme court of Spain. Article 626 of this code (which is substantially identical with article 506 of the Penal Code of 1848 and article 611 of the Penal Code of the Philippine Islands) repealed all general penal laws prior to its promulgation, but the court held that, where a crime was committed prior to the publication of the reformed code, the penalty prescribed by the code of 1850 (the code prior to that of 1870) being more favorable to the accused, that must be applied. (Decision of the supreme court of Spain, 17th of January, 1873.) We conclude therefore that in any case in which a statute prescribing a penalty for the commission of a specific offense is repealed, and in which the new statute provides new and distinct penalties for the commission of such offense, the penalty which must be imposed on one who committed the offense prior to the enactment of the repealing statute is that one which is more favorable to the convict. (U. S. vs. Cuna, 12 Phil. Rep., 241.)

It seems important, then, to determine whether the repeal of section 3 of Act No. 1697 by the enactment of the Administrative Code had the effect of providing new and distinct penalties for the commission of the crime of perjury, and whether the new penalties are or are not more favorable to the convict in the case at bar than those imposed by the trial judge. Section 3 of Act No. 1697, which defined and penalized the crime of perjury, repealed the provisions of the Penal Code defining and penalizing the crime of perjury, not expressly, but by implication, and we are of opinion that the repeal of Act No. 1697 revived those provisions of the code. (U. S. vs. Concepcion, 13 Phil. Rep., 424; U. S. vs. Estraa, 16 Phil. Rep., 520.) In the absence of the most express language to the contrary it will not be presumed that it was the intention of the legislator to let false swearing as to a material matter in a court of justice go unpunished, and such would be the effect of the repeal of section 3 of Act No. 1697, unless we held that the repeal had the effect of reviving the old statute. At the common law the repeal of a repealing act revived the former act (6 Co., 199; 1 Gray, 163; 7 W. & S., 263; 2 Blackstone, 32; 54 N. J. L. J., 175); and the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the repeal of a repealing law has this effect, unless the language of the repealing statute or some general statute provides otherwise. (U. S. vs. Otis, 120 U. S., 52 [115].) Manifestly, with this rule in mind, section 12 of the Administrative Code (Act No. 2657) which is found in Article III, [Chapter I] dealing with the form and effect of laws in general, provides that when a law which expressly repeals a prior law is itself repealed the law first repealed shall not be thereby revived unless expressly so provided. From which it may fairly be inferred that the old rule continues in force where a law which repeals a prior law, not expressly but by implication, it itself repealed; and that in such cases the repeal of the repealing law revives the prior law, unless the language of the repealing statute provides otherwise. Applying this rule, we conclude that the express repeal of section 3 of Act No. 1697 by the enactment of the Administrative Code (Act No. 2657) revived the provisions of the Penal Code touching perjury, which were themselves repealed, not expressly but by implication, by the enactment of Act No. 1697. A comparison of the penalties prescribed in the Penal Code for the commission of the acts of which the accused in the case at bar was convicted, giving him as we should the benefit of the provisions of Act No. 2142, discloses that the penalty prescribed therein is less than that imposed upon the appellant under the provisions of section 3 of Act No. 1697, and we conclude from what has been said already that the penalty imposed by the court below should be revoked and that in lieu thereof the penalty prescribed in the Penal Code should be imposed upon the convict. A question has been raised as to whether, admitting that the provisions of the Penal Code touching perjury have been revived, the accused can be convicted and penalized thereunder, it appearing that at the time when he testified falsely he was testifying in his own behalf in a criminal case in which he himself was the accused, on trial for the commission of a grave offense. In the case of United States vs. Gutierrez (12 Phil. Rep., 529), we said, speaking through Chief Justice Arellano, that, Perjury committed by a party in his own cause would not be punishable under Spanish legislation, because in said legislation no one was a witness in his own cause, and could not therefore become guilty of giving false testimony in a civil cause in which he was either the plaintiff or the defendant; but under the procedure in force by virtue of Act No. 190, a party to a suit may testify in his own behalf, and if he declares falsely under oath as a witness in his own cause, like any other witness, he incurs the penalty by which false testimony in civil matters is repressed and punished. This court has so held, it being a settled rule, that the false testimony given by a litigant as a witness constitutes the crime of giving false testimony inasmuch as such a declaration, according to the new laws in force, may determine a judgment in his favor and to the prejudice of the adverse party, and that a litigant who, in sworn testimony given by him as a witness in a civil cause, shall pervert the truth and give false testimony, incurs as such witness the penalties imposed by article 321 of the Penal Code. Analogous reasoning leads to a like conclusion as to the criminal liability for perjury of a defendant in a criminal case testifying falsely in his own behalf. Under the provisions of General Orders No. 58 an accused person may, if he so desires, testify under oath in his own behalf, and in that event, if he declares falsely as a witness in his own cause, like any other witness, he incurs the penalty by which false testimony in criminal matters is repressed and punished. It has been suggested that such a ruling will have a tendency to expose accused persons to vexatious criminal prosecutions by prosecuting officers, who, having failed to secure a conviction on the original charge, may be disposed to institute criminal prosecutions for perjury from a vindictive unwillingness to let the defendant escape scot free from the meshes of the law. It is said also that the fear of subsequent prosecution for perjury will tend to embarrass accused

persons in their efforts to defend themselves by testifying in their own behalf. But similar objections may be advanced against the prosecution of any of the witnesses called for the defense on charges of perjury, and it must not be forgotten that the right of an accused person to testify under oath in his own behalf is secured to him, not that he may be enabled to introduce false testimony into the record, but to enable him to spread upon the record the truth as to any matter within his knowledge which will tend to establish his innocence. Of course much must be left to the good sense and sound judgment of the prosecuting officer in determining whether a prosecution for perjury should be instituted against an accused person whose testimony in his own behalf would seem to be perjured. Due regard for the situation in which an accused person finds himself when testifying in his own behalf in a criminal proceeding will restrain a prudent prosecuting officer from the filing of charges of perjury in every case in which he may have reason to believe that the accused has not adhered strictly to the truth, in his anxiety to shield himself from punishment. But when, as in the case at bar, an accused person voluntarily goes upon the witness stand and falsely imputes some other person the commission of a grave offense, it would seem to be highly proper that he should be called to account in a criminal action for perjury upon the complaint of the person against whom such false charges are made. Article 319 of the Penal Code is as follows: Any person who shall give false testimony in favor of a defendant in a criminal case shall suffer a penalty ranging from arresto mayor in its maximum degree to prision correccional in its medium degree and a fine of not less than three hundred and seventy-five and not more than three thousand seven hundred and fifty pesetas, if the case were for a felony, and the penalty of arresto mayor if it were for a misdemeanor. We conclude that the judgment of conviction entered in the court below should be affirmed but that the sentence imposed therein should be reversed, and that giving the accused the benefit of the provisions of Act No. 2142, a penalty of 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor and a fine of P75 with subsidiary imprisonment as prescribed by law should be imposed upon him in lieu of that imposed by the trial judge, with the costs of this instance de officio. So ordered ILOILO PALAY AND CORN PLANTERS V. FELICIANO On December 26, 1964, Jose Y. Feliciano, Chairman and General Manager of the Rice and Corn Administration, wrote the President of the Philippines urging the immediate importation of 595,400 metric tons of rice, thru a government agency which the President may designate, pursuant to the recommendation of the National Economic Council as embodied in its Resolution No. 70, series of 1964. On December 27, 1964, the President submitted said letter to his cabinet for consideration and on December 28, 1964, the cabinet approved the needed importation. On January 4, 1965, the President designated the Rice and Corn Administration as the government agency authorized to undertake the importation pursuant to which Chairman Jose Y. Feliciano announced an invitation to bid for said importation and set the bidding for February 1, 1965. Considering that said importation is contrary to Republic Act 3452 which prohibits the government from importing rice and that there is no law appropriating funds to finance the same, the Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association, Inc., together with Ramon A. Gonzales, in his capacity as taxpayer, filed the instant petition before this Court seeking to restrain Jose Y. Feliciano, in his capacity as Chairman and General Manager of the Rice and Corn Administration, from conducting the bid scheduled on the date abovementioned, and from doing any other act that may result in the contemplated importation until further orders of this Court. For reasons that do not clearly appear, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Auditor General were made co-respondents. Pending decision on the merits, petitioners prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, which, in due course, this Court granted upon petitioners filing a bond in the amount of P50,000.00. This bond having been filed, the writ was issued on February 10, 1965. Respondents, in their answer do not dispute the essential allegations of the petition though they adduced reasons which justify the importation sought to be made. They anchor the validity of the importation on the provisions of Republic Act 2207 which, in their opinion, still stand. It is petitioners contention that the importation in question being undertaken by the government even if there is a certification by the National Economic Council that there is a shortage in the local supply of rice of such gravity as to constitute a national emergency, is illegal because the same is prohibited by Republic Act 3452 which, in its Section 10, provides that the importation of rice and corn is only left to private parties upon payment of the corresponding taxes. They claim that the Rice and Corn Administration, or any other government agency, is prohibited from doing so.

It is true that the section above adverted to leaves the importation of rice and corn exclusively to private parties thereby prohibiting from doing so the Rice and Corn Administration or any other government agency, but from this it does not follow that at present there is no law which permits the government to undertake the importation of rice into the Philippines. And this we say because, in our opinion, the provision of Republic Act 2207 on the matter still stands. We refer to Section 2 of said Act wherein, among other things, it provides that should there be an existing or imminent shortage in the local supply of rice of such gravity as to constitute a national emergency, and this is certified by the National Economic Council, the President of the Philippines may authorize such importation thru any government agency that he may designate. Here there is no dispute that the National Economic Council has certified that there is such shortage present which, because of its gravity, constitutes a national emergency, and acting in pursuance thereof the President lost no time in authorizing, after consulting his cabinet, the General Manager of the Rice and Corn Administration to immediately undertake the needed importation in order to stave off the impending emergency. We find, therefore, no plausible reason why the disputed importation should be prevented as petitioners now desire. The contention that Republic Act 2207 has already been repealed by Republic Act 3452 is untenable in the light of the divergent provisions obtaining in said two laws. Admittedly, Section 16 of Republic Act 3452 contains a repealing clause which provides: All laws or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. The question may now be asked: what is the nature of this repealing clause ? It is certainly not an express repealing clause because it fails to identify or designate the Act or Acts that are intended to be repealed [ Sutherland, Statutory Construction, (1943) Vol. 1, p. 467]. Rather, it is a clause which predicates the intended repeal upon the condition that a substantial conflict must be found in existing and prior Acts. Such being the case, the presumption against implied repeals and the rule against strict construction regarding implied repeals apply ex proprio vigore. Indeed, the legislature is presumed to know the existing laws so that, if a repeal is intended, the proper step is to so express it [Continental Insurance Co. v. Simpson, 8 F (2d) 439; Weber v. Bailey, 151 Ore. 2188, 51 P (2d) 832; State v. Jackson, 120 W. Va. 521, 199 S.E. 876]. The failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal any existing law (Crawford, Construction of Statute, 1940 ed., p. 631), unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exist in the terms of the new and old laws. Here there is no such inconsistency. To begin with, the two laws, although with a common objective, refer to different methods applicable to different circumstances. Thus, the total banning of importation under normal conditions as provided for in Republic Act 2207 is one step to achieve the rice and corn sufficiency program of the Administration. The philosophy behind the banning is that any importation of rice during a period of sufficiency or even of a minor shortage will unduly compete with the local producers and depress the local price which may discourage them from raising said crop. On the other hand, a price support program and a partial ban of rice importation as embodied in Republic Act 3452 is another step adopted to attend the sufficiency program. While the two laws are geared towards the same ultimate objective, their methods of approach are different; one is by a total ban of rice importation and the other by a partial ban, the same being applicable only to the government during normal period. There is another area where the two laws find a common point of reconciliation: the normalcy of the time underlying both laws. Thus, with respect to the matter of importation Republic Act 2207 covers three different situations: (1) when the local produce of rice is sufficient to supply local consumption; (2) when the local produce falls short of the supply but the shortage is not enough to constitute a national emergency; and (3) when the shortage, on the local supply of rice is of such gravity as to constitute a national emergency. Under the first two situations, no importation is allowed whether by the government or by the private sector. However, in the case of the third situation, the law authorizes importation, by the government. Republic Act 3452, on the other hand, deals only with situations 1 and 2, but not with. Nowhere in said law can we discern that it covers importation where the shortage in the local supply is of such gravity as to constitute a national emergency. In short, Republic Act 3452 only authorizes importation during normal times, but when there is a shortage in the local supply of such gravity as to constitute a national emergency, we have to turn to Republic Act 2207. These two laws therefore, are not inconsistent and so implied repeal does not ensue. Our view that Republic Act 3452 merely contemplates importation during normal times is bolstered by a consideration of the discussion that took place in Congress of House Bill No. 11511 which was presented in answer to the request of the Chief Executive that he be given a standby power to import rice in the Philippines. On this matter, we quote the following views of Senators Padilla and Almendras:

SENATOR PADILLA: But under Republic Act No. 3452 them is a proviso in Sec. 10 thereof that the Rice and Corn Administration or any government agency is hereby prohibited from importing rice and corn. SENATOR ALMENDRAS: That is under normal conditions. SENATOR PADILLA: Provided further, it says, that the importation of rice, and corn is left to private parties upon payment of the corresponding tax. So therefore, the position of the Committee as expressed by the distinguished sponsor, is that Sec. 10 of Republic Act No. 3452 is applicable under normal conditions. SENATOR ALMENDRAS: Yes. (Senate Debate, June 16, 1964). Much stress is laid on the content of Section 12 of Republic Act 3452 which gives to the President authority to declare a rice and corn emergency any time he deems necessary in the public interest and, during the emergency, to conduct raids, seizure and confiscation of rice and corn hoarded in any private warehouse or bodega subject to constitutional limitations, to support the claim that said Act also bans importation on the part of the government even in case of an emergency. The contention is predicated on a misinterpretation of the import and meaning of said provision. Note that the section refers to an emergency where there is an artificial shortage because of the apparent hoarding undertaken by certain unscrupulous dealers or businessmen, and not to an actual serious shortage of the commodity because, if the latter exists, there is really nothing to raid, seize or confiscate, because the situation creates a real national emergency. Congress by no means could have intended under such a situation to deprive the government of its right to import to stave off hunger and starvation. Congress knows that such remedy is worthless as there is no rice to be found in the Philippines. Seizure of rice is only of value in fighting hoarding and profiteering, but such remedy cannot produce the rice needed to solve the emergency. If there is really insufficient rice stocked in the private warehouses and bodegas such confiscatory step cannot remedy an actual emergency, in which case we have to turn to Republic Act 2207. The two laws can therefore be construed as harmonious parts of the legislative expression of its policy to promote a rice and corn program. And if this can be done, as we have shown, it is the duty of this Court to adopt such interpretation that would give effect to both laws. Conversely, in order to effect a repeal by implication, the litter statute must be irreconcilably inconsistent and repugnant to the prior existing law [United States v. Greathouse,. 166 U.S. 601, 41 L. Ed., 1130; In re Phoenix Hotel Co., 13 F. Supp. 229; Hammond v. McDonald, 32 Cal. App. 187, 89 P (2d) 407; Sutherland, Statutory Construction, supra, p. 462]. The old and the new laws must be absolutely incompatible (Compaia General de Tabacos v. Collector of Customs, 46 Phil. 8). A mere difference in the terms and provisions of the statutes is not sufficient to create a repugnancy between them. There must be such a positive repugnancy between the provisions of the old and the new statutes that they cannot be made to reconcile and stand together (Crawford, Construction of Statute, supra, p. 631). The clearest case possible must first be made before the inference of implied repeal may be drawn [Nagano v. McGrath, 187 F (2d) 759]. Inconsistency is never presumed. Republic Act 3848 entitled An Act Providing for the Importation of Rice During the Calendar Year Nineteen Hundred Sixty-Four in the Event of Shortage in Local Supply cannot be given any nullifying value, as it is pretended, simply because Section 6 thereof provides that except as provided in this Act, no other agency or instrumentality of the Government shall be allowed to purchase rice from abroad. The reason is that it is a mere temporary law effective only for a specific year. As its title reads, it is merely an authority to import rice during the year 1964. The same, therefore, is nowfunctus officio at least on the matter of importation. Neither can petitioners successfully pretend that as Section 4 thereof provides that pending prosecutions for any violation of Republic Acts 2207 and 3452 shall in no way be affected by said Act 3848 the implication is that the aforesaid Acts have already been repealed. That provision is merely a safeguard placed therein in order that the prosecutions already undertaken may not be defeated with the enactment of Republic Act 3848 because the latter provides for penal provisions which call for lesser penalty. The intention is to except them from the rule that penal statutes can be given retroactive effect if favorable to the accused. To further bolster our view that Republic Act 2207 has not been impliedly repealed by Republic Act 3452, we wish to briefly quote hereunder the views expressed by some senators during the discussion of House Bill 11511 already mentioned above. It should be here repeated that said bill was presented to accede to the request of the President for a stand-by power to import in case of emergency in view of the uncertainty of the law, but that during the discussion thereof it was strongly asserted and apparently upheld that such request for authority was not necessary because Republic Act 2207 was still in force. It is probably for this reason that said bill, after having been approved by the Senate, was killed in the conference committee that considered it. These views, while not

binding, are of persuasive authority and throw light on the issue relative to the effectivity of Republic Act 2207. SENATOR LIWAG: Now Mr. Chairman, is it the sense of the Committee that in the case of emergency, in case of an impending shortage, we can import rice under the provisions of R.A. No. 2207? SENATOR ALMENDRAS: Yes, that is what we mean, your Honor, in this paragraph (c), Section 2, page 2, that when we say under the provisions of existing law, we are referring to R.A. No. 2207. xxxxxxxxx SENATOR PADILLA: I notice, Mr. Senator, that Section 2 paragraph (c) of the amendment by substitution reads: Importation of rice and/or corn should be resorted to only in cases of extreme and under the provisions of existing law. I suppose that the existing laws referred to are Republic Act No. 2207 and Republic Act No. 3452. Does this section in the proposed bill by substitution recognize the continued existence of the pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 2207 and Republic Act No. 3452 on rice importation ? SENATOR ALMENDRAS: Yes, that is the reason, Your Honor, why we struck out the stand-by power on the part of the President to import rice. xxxxxxxxx SENATOR ALMENDRAS: The position of your Committee, Your Honor, because of the existing law that is, Republic Act No. 3452 and Republic Act No. 2207 that is the reason your Committee eliminated that stand-by power of the President to import rice. Because you know, Your Honor, what is the use of that stand-by power, inasmuch as under Republic Act No. 3452 and Republic Act No. 2207 the President can designate any government agency to import rice? SENATOR PADILLA: Well, it is good to make that clear because in the decision of the Supreme Court, as I said, there was no clear-cut holding as to the possible coexistence or implied repeal between these two Acts. SENATOR ALMENDRAS: Yes, Your Honor, but the gentleman from Nueva Ecija, Senator Liwag, informed me that Republic Act No. 2207 has never been repealed. SENATOR PADILLA: Well, I also concur with that view, but we want to make that clear . SENATOR PADILLA: Provided, further, it says, That the importat ion of rice and corn is left to private parties upon payment of the corresponding taxes. So, therefore, the position of the Committee, as expressed by the distinguished sponsor is that Sec. 10 of Republic Act No. 3452 is applicable under normal conditions. SENATOR ALMENDRAS: Yes. SENATOR PADILLA: So, both provisions of law are in existence. SENATOR ALMENDRAS: Yes. SENATOR PADILLA: One is not repealed by the other. xxxxxxxxx SENATOR TOLENTINO: Mr. President, there are two views already expressed on whether Republic Act No. 2207 has been repealed by Republic Act No. 3452. One view sustains the theory that there has been a repeal of Republic Act No. 2207 by Republic Act No. 3452 insofar as rice importation is concerned. The other view is that there is no repeal. The Supreme Court does not state clearly which side prevails. I take the view that the two laws can be reconciled . Now, Mr. President, reading those two provisions together, I maintain that they are not totally repugnant to each other, that it is possible for them to stand together except on certain points: First, is importation in case of a national emergency certified by the National Economic Council permissible? By reading the two provisos together I would say yes because there is nothing in the proviso contained in Republic Act No. 3452 which would be inconsistent with importation during a shortage amounting to a national emergency. Another circumstance that strengthens our view is that when said House Bill No. 11511 was finally approved by the Senate, it carried a clause which expressly repeals, among others, Republic Act No. 2207 (Section 14), but which bill, as already said, was later killed in the conference committee. This attitude clearly reveals that Congress preferred to fall back on Republic Act 2207 with regard to future importations. Anent the point raised relative to the lack of necessary appropriation to finance the importation in question, suffice it to state that under Republic Act 663 the National Rice and Corn Corporation is authorized to borrow, raise and secure the money that may be necessary to carry out its objectives. We refer to Section 3 (e) of said Act which empowers said corporation to secure money and to encumber any property it has as a guaranty, and Republic Act No. 3452, which creates the Rice and Corn Administration, transferred its functions and powers to the latter, including the power to borrow money under Section 3(e). This provision gives the RCA enough power with which to finance the importation in question. WHEREFORE, petition is dismissed. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court is hereby dissolved. Costs against petitioners.

LAGMAN V. CITY OF MANILA Petitioner Benedicto C. Lagman originally filed, on 6 August 1964, with this Court a petition for declaratory relief seeking a declaration of his rights under the socalled provincial bus ban ordinance (No. 4986, approved on 13 July 1964 by the City Mayor) of respondent City of Manila, with prayer for writs of preliminary and permanent injunctions to restrain and enjoin said respondent, its officers and/or agents, from enforcing and implementing said ordinance. At first, this Court, in its resolution dated 11 August 1964, dismissed said petition without prejudice to action, if any, in the lower court; but, upon herein petitioners motion for reconsideration and supplemental petition to convert said petition into one for prohibition, on the ground, among others, that respondents have been actually enforcing said ordinance effective 17 August 1964, this Court reconsidered its first resolution, gave due course to the petition and required respondents to answer. This Court did not, however, issue the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for. As disclosed by the record, the facts are: Petitioner was granted a certificate of public convenience by the Public Service Commission (by a decision, dated 20 March 1963, in PSC Case No. 61-7383) to operate for public service fifteen (15) auto trucks with fixed routes and regular terminal for the transportation of passengers and freight, on the line Bocaue (Bulacan) Paraaque (Rizal) via Meycauayan, Marilao, Obando, Polo, Malabon, Rizal, Grace Park, Rizal Avenue, Recto Avenue, Sta. Cruz Bridge, Taft Avenue, Libertad, Pasay City and Baclaran, and vice versa. Within Manila, the line passes thru Rizal Avenue, Plaza Goiti, McArthur Bridge, Plaza Lawton, P. Burgos, Taft Avenue and Taft Avenue Extension. Pursuant to said certificate, petitioner, who is doing business under the firm name and style of Marco Transit, began operating twelve (12) passenger buses along his authorized line. On 17 June 1964, the Municipal Board of respondent City of Manila, in pursuance to Section 18, paragraph hh, of Republic Act No. 409, as amended (otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila), that reads: The Municipal board shall have the following legislative powers: xxxxxxxxx (hh) To establish and regulate the size, speed, and operation of motor and other public vehicles within the city; to establish bus stops and terminals; and prohibit and regulate the entrance of provincial utility vehicles into the city, except those passing thru the city. xxxxxxxxx enacted Ordinance No. 4986, entitled An Ordinance Rerouting Traffic On Roads and Streets Within The City of Manila, and For Other Purposes, which the City Mayor approved, on 13 July 1964, effective upon approval thereof. The pertinent provisions of said ordinance, insofar as it affect the certificate of public convenience of petitioner, are quoted below, to wit: SECTION 1. As a positive measure to relieve the critical traffic congestion in the City of Manila, which has grown to alarming and emergency proportions, and in the best interest of public welfare and convenience, the following traffic rules and regulations are hereby Promulgated: RULE 1. DEFINITIONS A. Definition of Terms. When used in this ordinance and in subsequent ordinance having reference thereto, unless the context indicates otherwise: (a) The terms provincial passenger buses and provincial passenger jeepneys shall be understood to mean those whose route (or origin-destination) lines come from or going to points beyond Pasay City, Makati, Mandaluyong, San Juan, Quezon City, Caloocan City and Navotas. xxxxxxxxx RULE II. ENTRY POINTS AND ROUTES OF PROVINCIAL PASSENGER BUSES AND JEEPNEYS 1. Provincial passenger buses and jeepneys (PUB and PUJ) shall be allowed to enter Manila, but only through the following entry points and routes, from 6:30 A.M. to 8:30 P.M. every day except Sundays and Holidays: (a) Those coming from the north shall enter the city through Rizal Avenue; turn right to Mt. Samat; right to Dinalupihan right to J. Abad Santos; left to Rizal Avenue towards Caloocan City; xxxxxxxxx (n) Those coming from the south through Taft Avenue shall turn left at Vito Cruz; turn right to Dakota; turn right to Harrison Boulevard; turn right to Taft Avenue; thence proceed towards Pasay City; xxxxxxxxx RULE III. FLEXIBLE SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE 1. In order that provincial commuters shall not be unduly inconvenienced as a result of the implementation of these essential traffic control regulations, operators of provincial passenger buses shall be allowed to provide buses to shuttle their passengers from their respective entry control points, under the following conditions:

(a) Each provincial bus company or firm Shall be allowed such number of shuttle buses proportionate to the number of units authorized it, the ratio to be determined by the Chief, Traffic Control Bureau, based on his observations as to the actual needs of commuters and traffic volume; in no case shall the allocation be more than one shuttle bus for every 10 authorized units, or fraction thereof. (b) No shuttle bus shall enter Manila unless the same shall have been provided with identification stickers as required under Rule IV hereof, which shall be furnished and allocated by the Chief, Traffic Control Bureau to each provincial bus company or firm. (c) All such shuttle buses are not permitted to load or unload or to pick and/or drop passengers along the way but must do so only in the following places: (1) North (a) J. Abad Santos corner Rizal Avenue, or vicinities xxxxxxxxx (3) South (a) Harrison Boulevard, between Dakota and Taft Avenue xxxxxxxxx GENERAL PROVISIONS SEC. 4. Any violation of the provisions of this ordinance and of any other ordinance regulating traffic in the city, shall be punished by a fine of not less than P20.00, nor more than P200.00, or by imprisonment for not less than five (5) days nor more than six (6) months, or both such fine or imprisonment in the discretion of the court. On 17 August 1964, the Mayor of respondent City of Manila, through its police agencies, began actual enforcement of said ordinance and prevented petitioner from operating his buses, except two (2) Shuttle buses, along the line specified in his certificate of public convenience. Petitioner Lagman claims in his original and supplemental petitions that the enactment and enforcement of Ordinance No. 4986 is unconstitutional, illegal, ultra vires, and null and void. Thus, he contends that the routes within Manila through which he has been authorized to operate his buses are national roads or streets, and the regulation and control relating to the use of and traffic of which (roads) are vested, under Commonwealth Act No. 548, in the Director of Public Works, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications; but, since said ordinance was not proposed nor approved by the executive officials mentioned in said Act, its enactment and enforcement is a usurpation of the latter officials functions, and said ordinance is, therefore, unauthorized and illegal. He also contends that the power conferred upon respondent City of Manila, under said Section 18 (hh) of Republic Act No. 409, as amended, does not include the right to enact an ordinance such as the one in question, which has the effect of amending or modifying a certificate of public convenience granted by the Public Service Commission because any amendment or modification of said certificate is solely vested by law in the latter governmental agency, and only after notice and hearing (Sec. 16[m], Public Service Act); but since this procedure was not adopted or followed by respondents in enacting the disputed ordinance, the same is likewise illegal and null and void. He further contends that the enforcement of said ordinance is arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable because the city streets from which he had been prevented to operate his buses are the cream of his business. He finally contends that, even assuming that Ordinance No. 4986 is valid, it is only the Public Service Commission which can require compliance with its provisions (Sec. 17[j], Public Service Act), but since its implementation is without the sanction or approval of the Commission, its enforcement is also unauthorized and illegal. In his memorandum, petitioner adds as contention therefor that although his buses fall within the definition of the term provincial passenger buses under the disputed ordinance his route line having terminal outside the City of Manila and its immediate suburbs they merely pass thru the city; hence, its operation is covered within the saving clause of the above-quoted Section 18 (hh) of Republic Act No. 409, as amended, and he should not have been prevented from operating his buses within the city streets specified in his certificate of public convenience. On the other hand, respondent City of Manila, in its answer to the original and supplemental petitions, maintains that its power to prohibit and regulate the entrance of provincial public utility vehicles into the City, except those passing thru the City, as provided in its charter, is an explicit delegation of police power which is paramount and superior both with respect to the administrative power of the Director of Public Works, under Commonwealth Act No. 548, to regulate and control the use of, and traffic on, national roads or streets and to the administrative authority of the Public Service Commission, under Section 16 (m), of the Public Service Act, to amend, modify or revoke certificates of public convenience.

It also maintains that the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 548 have been repealed by Section 27 of Republic Act No. 917; and, even assuming that the former has not been so repealed by the latter, Ordinance No. 4968 does not contravene Commonwealth Act No. 548 because, even assuming that a repugnancy or conflict exists between this Act and Section 18 (hh) of Republic Act No. 409, as amended, the latter provisions prevails over the former. Republic Act No. 409 being a special law and of later enactment. Neither does Republic Act No. 409 contravene Section 16 (m) of the Public Service Act, Section 17(j) of the latter Act having imposed a duty in the Public Service Commission to require any public service to comply with any ordinance relating thereto. Lastly, respondent, in its reply memorandum, maintains that since petitioner admittedly engages in business within the city limits by picking up passengers therein, his buses do not merely pass thru the city; and they are not, therefore, covered within the saving clause of Section 18 (hh), of Republic Act No. 409, as amended. In our opinion, the present petition for prohibition should be denied. First, as correctly maintained by respondents, Republic Act No. 409, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila, is a special law and of later enactment than Commonwealth Act No. 548 and the Public Service Law (Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended), so that even if conflict exists between the provisions of the former act and the latter acts, Republic Act No. 409 should prevail over both Commonwealth Acts Nos. 548 and 146. In Cassion vs. Banco Nacional Filipino, 89 Phil. 560, 561, this Court said: for with or without an express enactment it is a familiar rule of statutory construction that to the extent of any necessary repugnancy between a general and a special law or provision, the latter will control the former without regard to the respective dates of passage. It is to be noted that Commonwealth Act No. 548 does not confer an exclusive power or authority upon the Director of Public Works, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, to promulgate rules and regulations relating to the use of and traffic on national roads or streets. This being the case, section 18 (hh) of the Manila Charter is deemed enacted as an exception to the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 548. It is a well settled principle that, because repeals by implication are not favored, a special law must be taken as intended to constitute an exception to the general law, in the absence of special circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion. (Baga vs. Philippine National Bank, 52 O.G. 6140). Where a special act is repugnant to or inconsistent with a prior general act, a partial repeal of the latter act will be implied or exception grafted upon the general act. (City of Geneses vs. Illinois Northern Utility Co., 39 NE 2d, p. 26) Second, the same situation holds true with respect to the provisions of the Public Service Act. Although the Public Service Commission is empowered, under its Section 16 (m), to amend, modify or revoke certificates of public convenience after notice and hearing, yet there is no provision, specific or otherwise, which can be found in this statute (Commonwealth Act No. 146) vesting power in the Public Service Commission to superintend, regulate, or control the streets of respondent City or suspend its power to license or prohibit the occupancy thereof. On the other hand, this right or authority, as hereinabove concluded, is conferred upon respondent City of Manila. The power vested in the Public Service Commission under Section 16 (m) is, therefore, subordinate to the authority granted to respondent City, under said section 18 (hh). As held in an American case: Ordinances designating the streets within a municipality upon which buses may operate, or prohibiting their operation in certain streets do not encroach upon the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission over motorbus common carriers, so long as the ordinances do not prevent or unreasonably interfere with the utilitys operation under the certificate or franchise granted by that Commission. (Stuck vs. Town of Beech Grove, 163 N.E. 483; 166 N.E. 153). That the powers conferred by law upon the Public Service Commission were not designed to deny or supersede the regulatory power of local governments over motor traffic, in the streets subject to their control, is made evident by section 17 (j) of the Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act No. 146) that provides as follows: SEC. 17. Proceedings of Commission without previous hearing. The Commission shall have power, without previous hearing, subject to established limitations and exceptions, and saving provisions to the contrary: xxxxxxxxx (j) To require any public service to comply with the laws of the Philippines, and with any provincial resolution or municipal ordinance relating thereto, and to conform to the duties imposed upon it thereby, or by the provisions of its own charter, whether obtained under any general or special law of the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied)

The petitioners contention that, under this section, the respective ordinances of the City can only be enforced by the Commission alone is obviously unsound. Subsection (j) refers not only to ordinances but also to the laws of the Philippines, and it is plainly absurd to assume that even laws relating to public services are to remain a dead letter without the placet of the Commission; and the section makes no distinction whatever between enforcement of laws and that of municipal ordinances. The very fact, furthermore, that the Commission is empowered, but not required, to demand compliance with apposite laws and ordinances proves that the Commissions powers are merely supplementary to those of state organs, such as the police, upon which the enforcement of laws primarily rests. Third, the implementation of the ordinance in question cannot be validly assailed as arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable. Aside from the fact that there is no evidence to substantiate this charge, it is not disputed that petitioner has not been totally banned or prohibited from operating all his buses, he having allowed to operate two (2) shuttle buses within the city limits. And finally, respondents correctly maintain that petitioner cannot avail of the saving clause of said section 18 (hh), he having admitted that his buses engaged in business within the city limits by picking up passengers therein; hence, they do not merely pass thru the city. Wherefore, the instant petition for prohibition should be as it is hereby, dismissed. With cost against petitioner Benedicto C. Lagman. NAPOCOR V. ARCA Original petition for certiorari filed by the National Power Corporation directed against the orders of the Court of First Instance of Manila, denying its motions to dismiss and to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction issued in Civil Case No. 55824 of said court. On 26 December 1963, the Philippine Power and Development Company1 and the Dagupan Electric Corporation,2 in their own behalf and on that of all the electric plant operators, who are members of the Philippine Electric Plant Owners Association (PEPOA), filed an injunction suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 55824) to restrain enforcement by the National Power Corporation of a revised rate of charges for the electric power and energy sold by said defendant, which schedule of new rates would take effect 1 January 1964. The Petition alleged, inter alia, that the disputed revised rates, which would increase the cost of electric power and energy being purchased from defendant by plaintiff Philippine Power and Development Company by 24% and that purchased by plaintiff Dagupan Electric Corporation by 30 %, are unreasonable, excessive and unnecessary; that the said revised rates had not been previously approved by the Public Service Commission; and that the unilateral revision by the defendant of the rate and its imposition upon the plaintiffs of the amended contracts embodying said new rates, without first submitting them to arbitration, was in gross violation of the provisions of the current contracts between them. Plaintiffs thus prayed the court for a temporary restraining order to prevent the scheduled enforcement and implementation of the revised rates and amended contracts; that, after hearing, said injunction be made permanent; and that they be awarded attorneys fees and costs. Finding sufficient reasons therefor, the court issued, on 27 December 1963, the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for by the plaintiffs, upon their filing a bond for P5,000.00. Defendant thereupon moved to dissolve the injunction, claiming that the enforcement of the new rate schedule will not violate any right of the plaintiffs; that it will not cause them irreparable damage or injury; that there are other legal remedies available to the plaintiffs; and that the court has no jurisdiction to pass upon the reasonableness or necessity of the revised rates, the authority therefor allegedly belonging to the Public Service Commission. A motion to dismiss the petition was also filed, based on the same ground of lack of jurisdiction by the court. Upon denial of this motion on 5 February 1964, defendant filed its answer with counterclaims, traversing the allegations of the petition and raising, as one of the special defenses, the issue of the courts jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. By order of 4 March 1964, the court denied defendants motion to dissolve the injunction; and when its motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid order was also denied on 10 June 1964, defendant National Power Corporation filed the present petition, charging the respondent judge with grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the case and in not dissolving the temporary restraining order issued therein. In this proceeding, petitioner does not deny that the lower court can take cognizance of some of the issues raised by the parties in their pleadings. It is petitioners theory, however, that for a court to acquire jurisdictionover a case, it is not enough that it should have jurisdiction over a portion of the subject matter of the complaint, but upon all the issues brought up by the pleadings.

And since, according to petitioner, the court below cannot determine the reasonableness of the disputed revised rates, which is one of the issues raised in the petition,because the matter allegedly pertains to the Public Service Commission pursuant to Republic Act 2677, it is contended that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the case and todissolve the writ of preliminary injunction involved in this controversy. The contention is devoid of merit. In the first place, contrary to petitioners assertion, the authority to inquire into the rates of charges for services rendered by the National Power Service Commission does not devolve upon the Public Service Commission. Commonwealth Act No. 120, creating the National Power Corporation, specifically provides: SEC. 2. The powers, functions, rights and activities of the said corporationshall be the following: xxx xxx xxx (g) to sell electric power and to fix the rates and provide for the collection of the charges for any service rendered: Provided, That the rates of charges shall not be subject to revision by the Public Service Commission. (Emphasis supplied) It is true that under Sections 13 and 14 of Republic Act 2677,3 amending the Public Service Act and approved on 18 June 1960, the Public Service Commission was vested with jurisdiction to fix the rate of charges by public utilities owned or operated by any instrumentality of the National Government or by any government-owned or controlled corporation. But the enactment of this later legislation, which is a general law, cannot be construed to have repealed or withdrawn the exempting proviso of Section 2, paragraph (g), of the earlier Commonwealth Act No. 120 abovequoted. For it is now the settled rule in this jurisdiction that a special statute, providing for a particular case or class of cases, is not repealed by a subsequent statute, general in its terms, provisions and applications, unless the intent to repeal or alter is manifest, although the terms of the general law are broad enough to include the cases embraced in the special law (Manila Railroad Co. vs. Rafferty, 40 Phil. 225). In the present case, there appears no such legislative intent to repeal or abrogate the provisions of the earlier special law. From the explanatory note to House Bill No. 4030, that later became Republic Act No. 2677, it was explicit that the jurisdiction conferred upon the Public Service Commission over the public utilities operated by government-owned or controlled corporations is to be confined to the fixing of rates of such public services, in order to avoid cutthroat or ruinous and unfair competition detrimental to operators and to the public interests.4 By the nature of the service being rendered by the National Power Corporation, i.e., the harnessing and then distribution and sale of electric power and energy to electric plant owners who, in turn, resell them to the consuming public, the contingency intended to be met by the legal provision under consideration would not exist. No other conclusion appears possible, therefore, than that the authority of the Public Service Commission under Republic Act 2677, over the fixing of rates of charges of public utilities owned or operated by government-owned or controlled corporations, can only be exercised where the charter of the government corporation concerned does not contain any provision to the contrary. Where there are two statutes, the earlier special and the later general the terms of the general broad enough to include the matter provided for in the special the fact that one is special and the other is general creates a presumption that the special is to be considered as remaining an exception to the general: one as a general law of the land, the other as the law of a particular case. (Manila Railroad Company vs. Rafferty, 40 Phil. 225, 228; City of Manila vs. Public Service Commission, 52 Phil. 515) But even if it were held that sections 13(a) and 14 of the Public Service Law, as amended by Republic Act 2677, have overridden and impliedly repealed the incompatible proviso of section 2(g) of the National Power Corporation charter, and that the Public Service Commission had jurisdiction to fix its rates, the position of this petitioner would not improve. For it is nowhere denied that the new schedule of rates that the National Power Corporation was attempting to impose had not been previously authorized by the Public Service Commission, hence, the respondents power companies were justified in contesting such new rates as illegal. In doing so, they were entitled to apply to respondent court of first instance for injunctive relief against the wrongful attempt of petitioner to enforce such unauthorized rates, since that remedy is not obtainable from the Public Service Commission itself (Commonwealth Act 146, section 22; Ramos vs. Court of First Instance of Tayabas, 58 Phil. 374, 376). Injunction is an exercise of judicial power, while the Public Service Commission is but an administrative body with limited functions.5 Thus, whether or not the Public Service Commission had authority to pass upon the petitioners revised rates, it is undeniable that respondents companies had the right to resort to the respondent court of first instance in quest of injunctive

relief against their enforcement which were claimed to be unauthorized by law and violative of respondents contracts; and it equally lay within the lower courts jurisdiction to entertain their action. The grant of the injunction complained of was merely incidental to the authority of the court to take cognizance of and adjudicate the main controversy submitted to it. Neither does the petitioner make out a case of abuse of discretion. Its side of the question was given due consideration, through its motion to lift the preliminary injunction issued. Whatever error may have been committed in denying that motion would be at most an error of judgment, not correctible by prerogative writ but by seasonable appeal. The argument that private respondents should have first exhausted administrative remedies by appeal to the National Economic Council and the President is without merit, for the petitioner itself claimed that the revised rates had been already approved by said Council; furthermore, neither that body nor the President could adjudicate whether or not there was a violation of the contracts between petitioner and the private respondents, as the latter averred. As to the claim that the damages to be suffered by private respondents are not irreparable, we believe that the same is untenable, for the losses to be suffered by the said respondents would necessarily reduce their resources and efficiency and prejudicially involve the services rendered by them to the general public, to an extent that cannot be determined in advance. WHEREFORE, the petition for a writ of certiorari is denied, and the preliminary injunction heretofore issued is dissolved. Costs against petitioner National Power Corporation. PEOPLE V. PIMENTEL Is the Court of Appeals, in affirming the order of the Regional Trial Court, correct in ruling that Subversion is the main offense in a charge of Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion under P.D. No. 1866, as amended, and that, therefore, the said charge should be quashed in view of a previous charge of Subversion under R.A. No. 1700, as amended byP.D. No. 885, against the same accused pending in another court? Stated differently, is the accused charged with the same offense in both cases, which would justify the dismissal of the second charge on the ground of double jeopardy? This is the pith issue presented before us in this appeal by certiorari interposed by the People under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking a review of the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (Sixteenth Division) dated May 27, 1991, in CA-G.R. SP No. 24273, entitled THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, versus HON. OSCAR B. PIMENTEL, as Judge, RTC of Makati, Metro Manila, Branch 148 and ANTONIO A. TUJAN, Respondents. The record discloses the following antecedent facts: As early as 1983, private respondent Antonio Tujan was charged with Subversion under Republic Act No. 1700 (the Anti-Subversion Law), as amended, before the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 45), National Capital Region, docketed as Criminal Case No. 64079. 2 As a consequence thereof, a warrant for his arrest was issued on July 29, 1983, 3 but it remained unserved as he could not be found. Almost seven (7) years thereafter, or on June 5, 1990, Antonio Tujan was arrested on the basis of the warrant of arrest in the subversion case. 4 When arrested, an unlicensed .38 caliber special revolver and six (6) rounds of live ammunition were found in his possession. 5 Consequently, on June 14, 1990, Antonio Tujan was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion under Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, before the Regional Trial Court of Makati (Branch 148), docketed as Criminal Case No. 1789. The Information reads: That on or about the 5th day of June, 1990, in the Municipality of Paraaque, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being a member of a communist party of the Philippines, and its front organization, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody, in furtherance of or incident to, or in connection with the crime of subversion, a special edition ARMSCOR PHILS. caliber .38 special revolver with Serial No. 1026387 and with six (6) live ammunitions, without first securing the necessary license or permit thereof from competent government authority. 6 The above Information recommended no bail for Antonio Tujan, which recommendation was approved by the trial court in an Order dated June 19, 1990. 7 The same order also directed the continued detention of Antonio Tujan at MIG 15 of the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP), Bago Bantay, Quezon City, while his case is pending. On June 26, 1990, Antonio Tujan, through counsel, filed a motion 8 invoking his right to a preliminary investigation pursuant to Section 7, Rule 112 of the Revised

Rules of Court and praying that his arraignment be held in abeyance until the preliminary investigation is terminated. However, on June 27, 1990, during the hearing of Antonio Tujans motion for preliminary investigation, his counsel withdrew the motion since he would file a motion to quash the Information, for which reason counsel requested a period of twenty (20) days to do so. This was granted by the trial court on that same day.[[9]] On July 16, 1990, Antonio Tujan did file the motion to quash 10 the Information in Criminal Case No. 1789 on the ground that he has been previously in jeopardy of being convicted of the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 64079 (for subversion) of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 45). The said ground is based on Sections 3 (h) and 7, Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. In support of the motion, Antonio Tujan contends that common crimes such as illegal possession of firearms and ammunition should actually be deemed absorbed in subversion,**11]] citing the cases of Misolas vs. Panga, et al. (G.R. No. 83341, January 30, 1990, 181 SCRA 648) and Enrile vs. Salazar, et al. (G.R. No. 92163, June 5, 1990, 186 SCRA 217). Antonio Tujan then avers that the present case is the twin prosecution of the earlier subversion case and, therefore, he is entitled to invoke the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.**12]] The petitioner opposed[[13]] the motion to quash, arguing that Antonio Tujan does not stand in jeopardy of being convicted a second time because: (a) he has not even been arraigned in the subversion case, and (b) the offense charged against him in Criminal Case No. 64079 is for Subversion, punishable under Republic Act No. 1700; while the present case is for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion, punishable under a different law (Presidential Decree No. 1866). Moreover, petitioner contends that Antonio Tujans reliance on the Misolas and Enrile cases is misplaced.**14]] Tujan merely relies on the dissenting opinions in the Misolas case. Also, the Enrile case which involved a complex crime of rebellion with murder is inapplicable to the instant case which is not a complex offense. Thus, the absorption rule as held applicable in the Enrile ruling has no room for application in the present case because (illegal) possession of firearm and ammunition is not a necessary means of committing the offense of subversion, nor is subversion a necessary means of committing the crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.**15]] The trial court, in an order dated October 12, 1990, granted the motion to quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 1789, the dispositive portion of the order reading: WHEREFORE, the motion to quash the information is hereby GRANTED, but only in so far as the accused may be placed in jeopardy or in danger of being convicted or acquitted of the crime of Subversion and as a consequence the Information is hereby quashed and the case dismissed without prejudice to the filing of Illegal Possession of Firearm. SO ORDERED.[[16]] It is best to quote the disquisition of the respondent court in quashing the information and dismissing the case: xxx xxx xxx In other words, the main offense the accused is being charged in this case is also Subversion considering that the alleged Illegal Possession of the Firearm and Ammunition is only in furtherance thereof. Now, subversion being a continuing offense as has been previously held by the Supreme Court, the fact that the accused has been previously charged of Subversion before another court before the institution of this instant case is just a continuing offense of his former charge or that his acts constituting subversion is a continuation of the acts he committed before. The court therefore cannot subscribe to the position taken by the prosecution that this case is very different from the other case and that double jeopardy will attach in this particular case. This court agrees with the position taken by the defense that double jeopardy will attach to the accusation of subversion, punishable now under Republic Act 1700, as Rule 117 of the Rules of Court particularly Section 1 thereof, provides: Time to move to quash At anytime before entering his plea, the accused may move to quash the complaint or information.(la) In other words, there is no necessity that the accused should be arraigned first before he can move to quash the information. It is before he pleads which the accused did in this case. On the other submissions by the prosecution, that the possession of firearms and ammunitions is not a necessary means of committing the offense of subversion or vice versa, then if the court follows such argument, there could be no offense of Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in furtherance of Subversion, for even the prosecution admits also that in subversion which is an offense involving propaganda, counter propaganda, a battle of the hearts and mind of the people does not need the possession or use of firearms and ammunitions.

The prosecution even admits and to quote: The defense of double jeopardy. while unquestionably available to the accused, had not been clearly shown to be invokable(sic) at this point in time. But the rule says otherwise as previously stated as provided for under Section 1 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. Thus, if ever the accused is caught in possession of a firearm and ammunition which is separate and distinct from the crime of subversion and is not a necessary ingredient thereof and the court believed so, the prosecution will have to file another information as they may wish. The court therefore has to grant the motion to quash on the aforestated grounds, subject to Section 5 of Rule 117, considering that the only offense to which the accused in this case may be placed in jeopardy is Subversion and not Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions. The prosecution may file any information as warranted within ten (10) days from receipt of this order otherwise the court will order the release of the accused, unless he is in custody for some other offense. 17 (Emphasis ours) Petitioners motion for reconsideration 18 was also denied in an order dated December 28, 1990. 19 The petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 24273. However, the appellate court found that the trial court did not commit any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in quashing the questioned Information. In dismissing the petition, the appellate court, in its decision dated May 27, 1991, basically reiterated the aforequoted ruling of the trial court. Petitioner now comes to this Court, claiming that: (1) the decision of the Court of Appeals is not in accord with the law and applicable jurisprudence; and (2) it was deprived of due process to prosecute and prove its case against private respondent Antonio Tujan in Criminal Case No. 1789. We agree with the petitioner. The Court of Appeals considered as duplicitous the Information for violation of P.D. No. 1866 filed against private respondent Antonio Tujan. It ruled: The foregoing information (for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion) filed before the Makati court shows that the main case is subversion considering that there is an allegation that the alleged illegal possession of firearms was made in furtherance of or incident to, or in connection with the crime of subversion. Also, the information alleged likewise that the accused is a member of a communist party of the Philippines and its front organization. Basically, the information refers to the crime of Subversion qualified by Illegal Possession of Firearms. . . . 20 The ruling of the Court of Appeals is erroneous. Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, under which Antonio Tujan is charged in Criminal Case No. 1789 before the Regional Trial Court of Makati (Branch 148), provides as follows: Sec. 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sales, Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition or Instruments Used or Intended to be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. ? The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or posses any firearms, part of firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition. If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearms, the penalty of death shall be imposed. If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crimes of rebellion, insurrection or subversion, the penalty of death shall be imposed. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager, director or other responsible officer of any public or private firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the firearms owned by such firm, company, corporation or entity to be used by any person or persons found guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding paragraphs. The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall carry any licensed firearm outside his residence without legal authority therefor. (Emphasis ours) The above-quoted provisions of P.D. No. 1866 are plain and simple. Under the first paragraph of Section 1, the mere possession of an unlicensed firearm or ammunition is the crime itself which carries the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. The third paragraph of the same Section makes the use of said firearm and ammunition in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crimes of rebellion, insurrection or subversion a circumstance to increase the penalty to death. Thus, the allegation in the Information in Criminal Case No. 1789 that the unlicensed firearm found in the possession of Antonio Tujan, a member of the communist party of the

Philippines and its front organization, was used in furtherance of or incident to, or in connection with the crime of subversion does not charge him with the separate and distinct crime of Subversion in the same Information, but simply describes the mode or manner by which the violation of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 was committed 21 so as to qualify the penalty to death. There is, therefore, only one offense charged in the questioned information, that is, the illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, qualified by its being used in furtherance of subversion. 22 There is nothing in P.D. No. 1866, specifically Section 1 thereof, which decrees categorically or by implication that the crimes of rebellion, insurrection or subversion are the very acts that are being penalized. This is clear from the title of the law itself which boldly indicates the specific acts penalized under it: CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION, OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES OR INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES, AND IMPOSING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR RELEVANT PURPOSES. (Emphasis ours) On the other hand, the previous subversion charge against Antonio Tujan in Criminal Case No. 64079, before the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 45), is based on a different law, that is, Republic Act No. 1700, as amended. Section 3 thereof penalizes any person who knowingly, willfully and by overt act affiliates with, becomes or remains a member of a subversive association or organization . . . Section 4 of said law further penalizes such member *of the Communist Party of the Philippines and/or its successor or of any subversive association] (who) takes up arms against the Government. Thus, in the present case, private respondent Antonio Tujan could be charged either under P.D. No. 1866 or R.A. No. 1700, 23 or both. This leads us to the issue of whether or not private respondent Antonio Tujan was placed in double jeopardy with the filing of the second Information for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion. We rule in the negative. Article III of the Constitution provides: Sec. 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. (Emphasis ours) Complementing the above constitutional provision, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court states: Sec. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. ? When an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information. xxx xxx xxx The right of an accused against double jeopardy is a matter which he may raise in a motion to quash to defeat a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. The pertinent provision of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: Sec. 3. Grounds. ? The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds: xxx xxx xxx (h) That the accused has been previously convicted or in jeopardy of being convicted, or acquitted of the offense charged. (2a) (Emphasis ours) In order that the protection against double jeopardy may inure to the benefit of an accused, the following requisites must have obtained in the first criminal action: (a) a valid complaint or information; (b) a competent court; (c) the defendant had pleaded to the charge; 24 and (d) the defendant was acquitted, or convicted, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. 25 Suffice it to say that in the present case, private respondents motion to quash filed in the trial court did not actually raise the issue of double jeopardy simply because it had not arisen yet. It is noteworthy that the private respondent has not even been arraigned in the first criminal action for subversion. Besides, as earlier discussed, the two criminal charges against private respondent are not of the same offense as required by Section 21, Article III of the Constitution. It is clear from the foregoing, that the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is not in accordance with the law and jurisprudence and thus should be reversed. While we hold that both the subversion charge under R.A. No. 1700, as amended, and the one for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in furtherance of

subversion under P.D. No. 1866, as amended, can co-exist, the subsequent enactment of Republic Act No. 7636 on September 22, 1992, totally repealing R.A. No. 1700, as amended, has substantially changed the complexion of the present case, inasmuch as the said repealing law being favorable to the accusedprivate respondent, who is not a habitual delinquent, should be given retroactive effect. 26 Although this legal effect of R.A. No. 7636 on private-respondents case has never been raised as an issue by the parties ? obviously because the said law came out only several months after the questioned decision of the Court of Appeals was promulgated and while the present petition is pending with this Court ? we should nonetheless fulfill our duty as a court of justice by applying the law to whomsoever is benefited by it regardless of whether or not the accused or any party has sought the application of the beneficent provisions of the repealing law. 27 That R.A. No. 7636 should apply retroactively to accused-private respondent is beyond question. The repeal by said law of R.A. No. 1700, as amended, was categorical, definite and absolute. There was no saving clause in the repeal. The legislative intent of totally abrogating the old anti-subversion law is clear. Thus, it would be illogical for the trial courts to try and sentence the accused-private respondent for an offense that no longer exists. 28 As early as 1935, we ruled in People vs. Tamayo: 29 There is no question that at common law and in America a much more favorable attitude towards the accused exists relative to statutes that have been repealed than has been adopted here. Our rule is more in conformity with the Spanish doctrine, but even in Spain, where the offense ceases to be criminal, prosecution cannot be had. (1 Pacheco Commentaries, 296) (Emphasis ours) Where, as here, the repeal of a penal law is total and absolute and the act with was penalized by a prior law ceases to be criminal under the new law, the previous offense is obliterated. 30 It is a recognized rule in this jurisdiction that a total repeal deprives the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence persons charged with violation of the old law prior to the repeal. 31 With the enactment of R.A. No. 7636, the charge of subversion against the accused-private respondent has no more legal basis and should be dismissed. As regards the other charge of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, qualified by subversion, this charge should be amended to simple illegal possession of firearm and ammunition since, as earlier discussed, subversion is no longer a crime. Moreover, the offense of simple illegal possession of firearm and ammunition is now bailable under Republic Act No. 8294 which was enacted on June 6, 1997. R.A. No. 8294 has amended Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, by eliminating the provision in said P.D. that if the unlicensed firearm is used in furtherance of subversion, the penalty of death shall he imposed. 32 Under the new law (R.A. No. 8294), the penalty prescribed for simple illegal possession of firearm (.38 caliber) is now reduced to prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00). 33 The reduced penalty of imprisonment ? which is four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years ? entitles the accused-private respondent to bail. Considering, however, that the accused-private respondent has been detained since his arrest on June 5, 1990 up to the present (as far as our record has shown), or more than seven (7) years now, his immediate release is in order. This is so because even if he were convicted for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, the length of his detention while his case is pending has already exceeded the penalty prescribed by the new law. WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 27, 1991, in CA-G.R. SP No. 24273, including the orders dated October 12, 1990 and December 28, 1990 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati (Branch 148), National Capital Region, in Criminal Case No. 1789, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The subversion charge against accused-private respondent Antonio A. Tujan in Criminal Case No. 64079 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 45, is hereby DISMISSED. The other Information for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in furtherance of subversion against the same accused in Criminal Case No. 1789 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 148, is DEEMED AMENDED to Simple Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition. The accused-appellant is hereby ordered RELEASED IMMEDIATELY from detention for the reason stated above, unless he is being detained for any other offense. This decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY HAGAD V. GOZO-DADOLE The determination of whether the Ombudsman under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6770,[[1]] otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, has been divested of his authority to conduct administrative investigations over local elective officials by virtue of the subsequent enactment of R.A. No. 7160,[[2]]otherwise known as

the Local Government Code of 1991, is the pivotal issue before the Court in this petition. The petition seeks (a) to annul the writ of preliminary injunction, dated 21 October 1992, issued against petitioner by respondent trial court and (b) to prohibit said court from further proceeding with RTC Case No. MDE-14.[[3]] Parenthetically, Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Arturo Mojica assumed the office of Juan Hagad, now resigned,[[4]] who took the initiative in instituting this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition. The controversy stemmed from the filing of criminal and administrative complaints, on 22 July 1992, against herein respondents Mayor Alfredo Ouano, Vice-Mayor Paterno Caete and Sangguniang Panlungsod Member Rafael Mayol, all public officials of Mandaue City, by Mandaue City Councilors Magno B. Dionson and Gaudiosa O. Bercede with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas. The respondents were charged with having violated R.A. No. 3019, as amended,[[5]] Articles 170[[6]] and 171[[7]] of the Revised Penal Code; and R.A. No. 6713.[[8]] Councilors Dionson and Bercede averred that respondent officials, acting in conspiracy, had caused the alteration and/or falsification of Ordinance No. 018/92 by increasing the allocated appropriation therein from P3,494,364.57 to P7,000,000.00 without authority from the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Mandaue City. The complaints were separately docketed as Criminal Case No. OMB-VIS-92-391 and as Administrative Case No. OMB-VISADM-92-015. A day after the filing of the complaints, or on 23 July 1992, a sworn statement was executed by Mandaue City Council Secretary, Atty. Amado C. Otarra, Jr., in support of the accusations against respondent officials. The next day, petitioner ordered respondents, including Acting Mandaue City Treasurer Justo G. Ouano and Mandaue City Budget Officer Pedro M. Guido, to file their counter-affidavits within ten (10) days from receipt of the order. Forthwith, Councilors Dionson and Bercede moved for the preventive suspension of respondent officials in the separately docketed administrative case. Aside from opposing the motion for preventive suspension, respondent officials, on 05 August 1992, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the Ombudsman supposedly was bereft of jurisdiction to try, hear and decide the administrative case filed against them since, under Section 63 of the Local Government Code of 1991, the power to investigate and impose administrative sanctions against said local officials, as well as to effect their preventive suspension, had now been vested with the Office of the President. In their opposition, filed on 10 August 1992, Dionson and Bercede argued that the Local Government Code of 1991 could not have repealed, abrogated or otherwise modified the pertinent provisions of the Constitution granting to the Ombudsman the power to investigate cases against all public officials and that, in any case, the power of the Ombudsman to investigate local officials under the Ombudsman Act had remained unaffected by the provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991. During the hearing on the motion for preventive suspension, the parties were directed by the Deputy Ombudsman to file their respective memoranda. In his memorandum, Mayor Ouano reiterated that, under Sections 61 and 63 of the Local Government Code of 1991, the Office of the President, not the Office of the Ombudsman, could lawfully take cognizance of administrative complaints against any elective official of a province, a highly urbanized city or an independent component city and to impose disciplinary sanctions, including preventive suspensions, and that there was nothing in the provision of the Constitution giving to the Office of the Ombudsman superior powers than those of the President over elective officials of local governments. In an Order,[[9]] dated 10 September 1992, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman denied the motion to dismiss and recommended the preventive suspension of respondent officials, except City Budget Officer Pedro M. Guido, until the administrative case would have been finally resolved by the Ombudsman.[[10]] Respondent officials were formally placed under preventive suspension by the Deputy Ombudsman pursuant to an Order 11 of 21 September 1992. On 25 September 1992, a petition for prohibition, with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, was filed by respondent officials with the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City. Acting favorably on the pleas of petitioning officials, respondent Judge issued, on even date, a restraining order directed at petitioner, enjoining him . . . from enforcing and/or implementing the questioned order of preventive suspension issued in OMB-VISADM-92-015. Petitioner moved to dismiss the petition but it was to no avail. The court a quo, on 15 October 1992, denied the motion to dismiss and issued an Order for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, holding thusly: So by following and applying the well-established rules of statutory construction that endeavor should be made to harmonize the provisions of these two laws in

order that each shall be effective, it is the finding of this Court that since the investigatory power of the Ombudsman is so general, broad and vague and gives wider discretion to disciplining authority to impose administrative sanctions against a responsible public official or employee while that of Section 60 of the New Local Government Code provides for more well defined and specific grounds upon which a local elective official can be subjected to administrative disciplinary action, that it could be considered that the latter law could be an exception to the authority and administrative power of the Ombudsman to conduct an investigation against local elective officials and as such, the jurisdiction now to conduct administrative investigation against local elective officials is already lodged before the offices concerned under Section 61 of Republic Act No. 7160. xxx xxx xxx WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, Order is hereby issued: 1) Expanding the restraining order dated September 25, 1992 issued by the Court into an Order for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction upon the posting of the petitioners of the bond in the amount of Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) conditioned that the latter will pay all the costs that may be adjudged to the adverse party and/or damages which he may sustain by reason of the injunction, if the Court will finally adjudge that the petitioners are not entitled thereto, and 2) Denying the respondents Motion to Dismiss dated September 28, 1992 for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[[12]] A writ of preliminary injunction was issued on 21 October 1992.[[13]] A motion for reconsideration made by petitioner was denied by the trial court. The instant recourse seeks the nullification of the order of 15 October 1992 and the writ of preliminary injunction of 21 October 1992 both issued by the trial court and prays that respondent judge be directed to desist from further proceeding with RTC Case No. MDE-14. There is merit in the petition. The general investigatory power of the Ombudsman is decreed by Section 13 (1) Article XI, of the 1987 Constitution, 14 thus: Sec. 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties: (1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient; while his statutory mandate to act on administrative complaints is contained in Section 19 of R.A. No. 6770 that reads: Sec. 19. Administrative complaints. The Ombudsman shall act on all complaints relating, but not limited, to acts or omissions which: 1. Are contrary to law or regulation; 2. Are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminatory; 3. Are inconsistent with the general course of an agencys functions, though in accordance with law; 4. Proceed from a mistake of law or an arbitrary ascertainment of facts; 5. Are in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper purpose; or 6. Are otherwise irregular, immoral or devoid of justification. Section 21 of the same statute names the officials who could be subject to the disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman, viz.: Sec. 21. Officials Subject to Disciplinary Authority; Exceptions. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including Members of the Cabinet, local government, government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries except over officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary. (Emphasis supplied) Taken in conjunction with Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770, petitioner thus contends that the Office of the Ombudsman correspondingly has the authority to decree preventive suspension on any public officer or employee under investigation by it. Said section of the law provides: Sec. 24. Preventive Suspension. The Ombudsman or his Deputy may preventively suspend any officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation, if in his judgment, the evidence of guilt is strong, and (a) the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charges would warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondents continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him. The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is terminated by the Office of the Ombudsman but not more than six months, without pay, except when the delay in the disposition of the case by the Office of the Ombudsman is due to the fault, negligence or petition of the respondent, in which case the period of such delay shall not be counted in computing the period of suspension herein provided.

Respondent officials, upon the other hand, argue that the disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman over local officials must be deemed to have been removed by the subsequent enactment of the Local Government Code of 1991 which vests the authority to investigate administrative charges, listed under Section 60 15 thereof, on various offices. In the case specifically of complaints against elective officials of provinces and highly urbanized cities, the Code states: Sec. 61. Form and Filing of Administrative Complaints. A verified complaint against any erring local elective officials shall be prepared as follows: (a) A complaint against any elective official of a province, a highly urbanized city, an independent component city or component city shall be filed before the Office of the President. Thus respondents insist, conformably with Section 63 of the Local Government Code, preventive suspension can only be imposed by: . . . the President if the respondent is an elective official of a province, a highly urbanized or an independent component city; . . . under sub-paragraph (b) thereof: (b) Preventive suspension may be imposed at any time after the issues are joined, when the evidence of guilt is strong, and given the gravity of the offense, there is great probability that the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence; Provided, That, any single preventive suspension of local elective officials shall not extend beyond sixty (60) days: Provided, further, That in the event that several administrative cases are filed against an elective official, he cannot be preventively suspended for more than ninety (90) days within a single year on the same ground or grounds existing and known at the time of the first suspension. In his comment, which the Court required considering that any final resolution of the case would be a matter of national concern, the Solicitor-General has viewed the Local Government Code of 1991 as having conferred, but not on an exclusive basis, on the Office of the President (and the various Sanggunians) disciplinary authority over local elective officials. He posits the stand that the Code did not withdraw the power of the Ombudsman theretofore vested under R.A. 6770 conformably with a constitutional mandate. In passing, the Solicitor General has also opined that the appropriate remedy that should have been pursued by respondent officials is a petition for certiorari before this Court rather than their petition for prohibition filed with the Regional Trial Court. Indeed, there is nothing in the Local Government Code to indicate that it has repealed, whether expressly or impliedly, the pertinent provisions of the Ombudsman Act. The two statutes on the specific matter in question are not so inconsistent, let alone irreconcilable, as to compel us to only uphold one and strike down the other. Well settled is the rule that repeals of laws by implication are not favored,[[16]] and that courts must generally assume their congruent application.[[17]] The two laws must be absolutely incompatible,[[18]] and a clear finding thereof must surface, before the inference of implied repeal may be drawn.[[19]] The rule is expressed in the maxim, interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus interpretendi, i.e., every statute must be so interpreted and brought into accord with other laws as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence.[[20]] The fundament is that the legislature should be presumed to have known the existing laws on the subject and not to have enacted conflicting statutes.[[21]] Hence, all doubts must be resolved against any implied repeal,[[22]] and all efforts should be exerted in order to harmonize and give effect to all laws on the subject.[[23]] Certainly, Congress would not have intended to do injustice to the very reason that underlies the creation of the Ombudsman in the 1987 Constitution which is to insulate said office from the long tentacles of officialdom.**24]] Quite interestingly, Sections 61 and 63 of the present Local Government Code run almost parallel with the provisions then existing under the old code. Section 61 and Section 63 of the precursor local Government Code of 1983,[[25]] under the heading of Suspension and Removal, read: Sec. 61. Form and Filing of Complaints. Verified complaints against local elective officials shall be prepared as follows: (a) Against any elective provincial or city official, before the Minister of Local Government. Sec. 63. Preventive Suspension. (1) Preventive suspension may be imposed by the Minister of Local Government if the respondent is a provincial or city official, by the provincial governor if the respondent is an elective municipal official, or by the city or municipal mayor if the respondent is an elective barangay official. (2) Preventive suspension may be imposed at any time after the issues are joined, when there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has committed the act or acts complained of, when the evidence of culpability is strong, when the gravity of the offense so warrants, or when the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence. In all cases, preventive suspension shall not extend beyond sixty days after the start of said suspension.

(3) At the expiration of sixty days, the suspended official shall be deemed reinstated in office without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings against him until its termination. However, if the delay in the proceedings of the case is due to his fault, neglect or request, the time of the delay shall not be counted in computing the time of suspension. The authority to conduct administrative investigation and to impose preventive suspension over elective provincial or city officials was at that time entrusted to the Minister of Local Government until it became concurrent with the Ombudsman upon the enactment of R.A. No. 6770, specifically under Sections 21 and 24 thereof, to the extent of the common grant. The Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), in fine, did not effect a change from what already prevailed, the modification being only in the substitution of the Secretary (the Minister) of Local Government by the Office of the President. Respondent local officials contend that the 6-month preventive suspension without pay under Section 24 of the Ombudsman Act is much too repugnant to the 60-day preventive suspension provided by Section 63 of the Local Government Code to even now maintain its application. The two provisions govern differently. In order to justify the preventive suspension of a public official under Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770, the evidence of guilt should be strong, and (a) the charge against the officer or employee should involve dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charges should warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondents continued stay in office would prejudice the case filed against him. The Ombudsman can impose the 6-month preventive suspension to all public officials, whether elective or appointive, who are under investigation. Upon the other hand, in imposing the shorter period of sixty (60) days of preventive suspension prescribed in the Local Government Code of 1991 on an elective local official (at any time after the issues are joined), it would be enough that (a) there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has committed the act or acts complained of, (b) the evidence of culpability is strong, (c) the gravity of the offense so warrants, or (d) the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence. Respondent officials, nevertheless, claim that petitioner committed grave abuse of discretion when he caused the issuance of the preventive suspension order without any hearing. The contention is without merit. The records reveal that petitioner issued the order of preventive suspension after the filing (a) by respondent officials of their opposition on the motion for preventive suspension and (b) by Mayor Ouano of his memorandum in compliance with the directive of petitioner. Be that, as it may, we have heretofore held that, not being in the nature of a penalty, a preventive suspension can be decreed on an official under investigation after charges are brought and even before the charges are heard. Naturally, such a preventive suspension would occur prior to any finding of guilt or innocence. In the early case of Nera vs. Garcia,[[26]] reiterated in subsequent cases,[[27]] we have said: In connection with the suspension of petitioner before he could file his answer to the administrative complaint, suffice it to say that the suspension was not a punishment or penalty for the acts of dishonesty and misconduct in office, but only as a preventive measure. Suspension is a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. If after such investigation, the charges are established and the person investigated is found guilty of acts warranting his removal, then he is removed or dismissed. This is the penalty. There is, therefore, nothing improper in suspending an officer pending his investigation and before the charges against him are heard and be given an opportunity to prove his innocence. Moreover, respondent officials were, in point of fact, put on preventive suspension only after petitioner had found, in consonance with our ruling in Buenaseda vs. Flavier,[[28]] that the evidence of guilt was strong. Petitioner gave his justification for the preventive suspension in this wise: After a careful and honest scrutiny of the evidence submitted on record, at this stage, it is the holding of this office that the evidence of guilt against the respondents in the instant case is strong. There is no question that the charge against the respondents involves dishonesty or gross misconduct which would warrant their removal from the service and there is no gainsaying the fact that the charge for falsification of veritable documents like city ordinances are very serious charges that affect the very foundations of duly established representative governments. Finally, it is likewise the holding of this office at this stage that the continued stay in office of respondents may prejudice the judicious investigation and resolution of the instant case.[[29]] Finally, it does appear, as so pointed out by the Solicitor General, that respondent officials petition for prohibition, being an application for remedy against the findings of petitioner contained in his 21 September 1992 order,

should not have been entertained by the trial court. The proscription in Section 14 of R.A. No. 6770 reads: Sec. 14. Restrictions. No writ of injunction shall be issued by any court to delay an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman under this Act, unless there is a prima facie evidence that the subject matter of the investigation is outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman. No court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure question of law. Likewise noteworthy is Section 27 of the law which prescribes a direct recourse to this Court on matters involving orders arising from administrative disciplinary cases originating from the Office of the Ombudsman; thus: Sec. 27. Effectivity and Finality of Decisions. . . . In all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives, or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision or denial of the motion for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. (Emphasis supplied) All told, petitioner is plainly entitled to the relief prayed for, and we must, accordingly; grant the petition. WHEREFORE, the questioned writ of preliminary injunction of 21 October 1992 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE, and RTC Case No. MDE-14 is hereby ordered DISMISSED. No costs.