A. Rules and Regulations (Art.
t. 5, LC) ; Rule Making Authority/ Rule Making On September 2, 1991, the petitioner, PASEI, filed this petition for prohibition to annul the
Power to promulgate Implementing Rules and Regulations
Article 5. Rules and regulations. The Department of Labor and other government agencies
charged with the administration and enforcement of this Code or any of its parts shall
promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations. Such rules and regulations
shall become effective fifteen (15) days after announcement of their adoption in newspapers
of general circulation.
CASES
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS VS TORRES
FACTS:
PASEI is the largest national organization of private employment and recruitment agencies
duly licensed and authorized by the POEA, to engaged in the business of obtaining overseas
employment for Filipino land based workers, including domestic helpers.
On June 1, 1991, as a result of published stories regarding the abuses suffered by Filipino
housemaids employed in Hong Kong, DOLE Secretary Ruben D. Torres issued Department
Order No. 16, Series of 1991, temporarily suspending the recruitment by private employment
agencies of "Filipino domestic helpers going to Hong Kong"
Pursuant to the above DOLE circular, the POEA issued Memorandum Circular No. 30, Series of
1991, dated July 10, 1991, providing GUIDELINES on the Government processing and
deployment of Filipino domestic helpers to Hong Kong and the accreditation of Hong Kong
recruitment agencies intending to hire Filipino domestic helpers.
aforementioned DOLE and POEA circulars and to prohibit their implementation due to GAD of
the respondents in issuing the said circulars and lack of the required publication.
ISSUE: 1. WON respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion and/or in excess of their
rule-making authority in issuing said circulars. no!
2. WON the administrative issuances be enforced. no!
RULING:
1. The vesture of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers in administrative bodies is not
unconstitutional, unreasonable and oppressive. It has been necessitated by "the growing
complexity of the modern society" (Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Payawal, 177 SCRA 72, 79). More
and more administrative bodies are necessary to help in the regulation of society's ramified
activities. "Specialized in the particular field assigned to them, they can deal with the
problems thereof with more expertise and dispatch than can be expected from the legislature
or the courts of justice" (Ibid.).
It is noteworthy that the assailed circulars do not prohibit the petitioner from engaging in the
recruitment and deployment of Filipino landbased workers for overseas employment. A
careful reading of the challenged administrative issuances discloses that the same fall within
the "administrative and policing powers expressly or by necessary implication conferred"
upon the respondents (People vs. Maceren, 79 SCRA 450).
The Solicitor General, in his Comment, aptly observed:
. . . Said Administrative Order [i.e., DOLE Administrative Order
No. 16] merely restricted the scope or area of petitioner's
business operations by excluding therefrom recruitment and
deployment of domestic helpers for Hong Kong till after the
establishment of the "mechanisms" that will enhance the
protection of Filipino domestic helpers going to Hong Kong. In
fine, other than the recruitment and deployment of Filipino
domestic helpers for Hongkong, petitioner may still deploy other
class of Filipino workers either for Hongkong and other countries
and all other classes of Filipino workers for other countries.
2. Nevertheless, they are legally invalid, defective and unenforceable for lack of power
publication and filing in the Office of the National Administrative Register as required in
Article 2 of the Civil Code, Article 5 of the Labor Code and Sections 3(1) and 4, Chapter 2,
Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987.
 Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the
completion of their publication in the Official Gazatte, unless it is
otherwise provided. . . . (Civil Code.)
Art. 5. Rules and Regulations. x x x Such rules and regulations shall
become effective fifteen (15) days after announcement of their
adoption in newspapers of general circulation.
Sec. 3. Filing. (1) Every agency shall file with the University of the
Philippines Law Center, three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted
by it. x x x
For lack of proper publication, the administrative circulars in question may not be enforced
and implemented.
SHELL PHILIPPINES VS CENTRAL BANK (tax related ang facts nito)
FACTS:
Congress passed an Act imposing a stabilization tax on consignments abroad which
will be enforced during the fiscal years following when the aggregate value of consignment of
US$5M is reached. Shell, during 1971, exported seria residues. On January 7, 1972, the
monetary board issued a resolution subjecting the petroleum pitch and other petroleum
residues to the stabilization tax starting January 1, 1972.
On September 14, 1972, appellee filed suit against the Central Bank before the
Court of First Instance of Manila, praying that Monetary Board Resolution No. 47 be declared
null and void, and that Central Bank be ordered to refund the stabilization tax it paid during
the first semester of 1972. Its position was that, pursuant to the provisions of RA 6125, it
had to pay the stabilization tax only from July 1, 1972.
The lower court ordered the refund and declared the resolution void. Central Bank
appealed.
ISSUE: WON the resolution is valid.
HELD: No!
While it is true that under the same law the Central Bank was given the authority
to promulgate rules and regulations to implement the statutory provision in question, we
reiterate the principle that this authority is limited only to carrying into effect what the law
being implemented provides.
In People v. Maceren (79 SCRA 450, 458 and 460), this Court ruled that:
Administrative regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular
department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and should be for the sole
purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions. By such regulations, of course, the law
itself cannot be extended. An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress.
The rule-making power must be confined to details for regulating the mode or proceeding to
carry into effect the law as it has been enacted. The power cannot be extended to amending
or expanding the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute.
Rules that subvert the statute cannot be sanctioned.
The rule or regulation should be within the scope of the statutory authority granted by the
legislature to the administrative agency.
Considering the foregoing, we rule that the trial court was correct in declaring that "Monetary
Board Resolution No. 47 is void insofar as it imposes the tax mentioned in Republic Act No.
6125 on the export seria residue of (plaintiff) the aggregate annual F.O.B., value of which
reached five million United States dollars in 1971 effective on January 1, 1972." The said
resolution runs counter to the provisions of R.A. 6125 which provides that "(A)ny export
product the aggregate annual F.O.B. value of which shall exceed five million United States
dollars in any one calendar year during the effectivity of this Act shall likewise be subject to
the rates of tax in force during the fiscal year following its reaching the said aggregate
value."
IBAAEU VS INCIONG
FACTS: On June 20, 1975, the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent bank for
the payment of holiday pay before the then Department of Labor, NLRC in Manila.
Conciliation having failed, the case was certified for arbitration and later on a decision was
rendered by the Labor Arbiter granting petitioners complaint. Respondent bank complied by
paying the holiday pay to and including January 1976. On December 1975, PD 850was
promulgated amending the provisions of the Labor Code with the controversial section
stating that monthly paid employees receiving uniform monthly pay is presumed to be
already paid the 10 paid legal holidays. Policy instruction 9 was issued thereafter
interpreting the said rule. Respondents bank stopped the payment by reason of the
promulgated PD 850 and Policy Instruction 9.
ISSUE: WON the monthly paid employees are excluded from the benefit of Holiday Pay.
HELD: NO! Policy Instruction No 9 is null and void.
The coverage and scope of exclusion of the Labor Code's holiday pay provisions is
spelled out under Article 82 thereof which reads: t.hqw
Art. 82. Coverage. The provision of this Title shall apply to employees
in all establishments and undertakings, whether for profit or not, but not
to government employees, managerial employees, field personnel
members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for
support domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of another,
and workers who are paid by results as determined by the Secretary of
Labor in appropriate regulations.
... (emphasis supplied).
From the above-cited provisions, it is clear that monthly paid employees are not
excluded from the benefits of holiday pay. However, the implementing rules on holiday pay
promulgated by the then Secretary of Labor excludes monthly paid employees from the said
benefits by inserting, under Rule IV, Book Ill of the implementing rules, Section 2, which
provides that: "employees who are uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the number
of working days therein, with a salary of not less than the statutory or established minimum
wage shall be presumed to be paid for all days in the month whether worked or not. "
It is elementary in the rules of statutory construction that when the language of
the law is clear and unequivocal the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says. In the
case at bar, the provisions of the Labor Code on the entitlement to the benefits of holiday pay
are clear and explicit - it provides for both the coverage of and exclusion from the benefits.
In Policy Instruction No. 9, the then Secretary of Labor went as far as to categorically state
that the benefit is principally intended for daily paid employees, when the law clearly states
that every worker shall be paid their regular holiday pay. This is a flagrant violation of the
mandatory directive of Article 4 of the Labor Code, which states that "All doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing
rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor." Moreover, it shall always be
presumed that the legislature intended to enact a valid and permanent statute which would
have the most beneficial effect that its language permits (Orlosky vs. Haskell, 155 A. 112.)
Obviously, the Secretary (Minister) of Labor had exceeded his statutory authority
granted by Article 5 of the Labor Code authorizing him to promulgate the necessary
implementing rules and regulations.