ACHILLES C. BERCES, SR.

petitioner
vs.
HON. EXEUTIVE SECRETARY TEOFISTO
GUINGONA, JR., CHIEF PRESIDENTIAL LEGAL
COUNSEL ANTONIO CARPIO and MAYOR NAOMI C.
CORRAL OF TIWI, ALBAY
respondents
x--------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. NO. 112099 / 21 February 1995

QUIASON, J.:

DOCTRINE:
Subsequent law cannot be construed as repealing a prior law unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and
repugnant exist in the terms of the new and old laws.

FACTS:
Respondent, Mayor Naomi Corral of Tiwi, Albay, was charged before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
two (2) administrative cases – abuse of authority and/or oppression for non-payment of leave benefits by the Petitioner
and abuse of authority for installing water pipeline to service the respondent’s private residence and medical clinic.
Facts shows that Petitioner Achilles Berces Sr., was then a Municipal Councilor of Tiwi, Albay from 1988
to 1992, claiming for the equivalent monetary value of the leave benefits he accrued at the time.
The Sangguniang Panlalawigan disposed a Decision for the two (2) administrative cases against Mayor
Corral, in favor of the petitioner. The decision was appealed by the respondent through the Office of the
President questioning the decision and subsequently prayed for the stay of execution in accordance with the
Section 67(b) of the Local Government Code. The Office of the President issued an order on 28 June 1993 granting
the appeal as prayed, under R.A. No. 7160 sec.68 and A.O. No. 18 Sec.6. Petitioner then filed a Motion for
Reconsideration but was denied on 13 September 1990.
A Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court with prayer for
mandatory preliminary injunction filed before the Supreme Court by the petitioner, assailing the Orders of the
office of the President as having been issued with grave abuses of discretion and further claims that the
governing law in the instant case is R.A. 7160 as it repealed the A.O. 18, pertaining to the mandatory provision
that an appeal shall not prevent a decision from becoming final and executory.

ISSUE/S:
Whether of not, the A.O. No.18 was repealed by R.A. No. 7160.
Whether or not, the Office of the President erred in rendering its order

RULING:
NO. The provisions of A.O. No.18 sec.6 and R.A. No. 7160 sec 68 are not irreconcilably inconsistent &
repugnant and the two (2) laws must in fact be read together.
NO. The office of the President made a finding that the execution of the Decision of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan suspending the respondent Mayor from the office might be prejudicial to the public. Thus in order
to not disrupt the rendition of service by the Mayor to the public, a stay of execution of the Division is in order.
Hence, the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is
DISMISSED.