4. Peralta and Javellana

7/29/2019 4. Peralta and Javellana

1/6

Force and Effect of Administrative Rules and Regulations

Peralta vs. Civil Service Commission212 SCRA 425 (1992)

Facts:

- The case involves deductions made upon the salary of petitioner Maynard Peralta whowas appointed Trade Specialist II in the Department of Trade and Industry on Sept. 25,1989.

- On December 8, 1989 petitioner received his initial salary covering the period from Sept.25, 1989 to October 31, 1989. Since he had no accumulated leave credits, DTI deductedfrom his salary the amount corresponding to his absences during the covered periodinclusive of Saturdays and Sundays.

- Upon petitioners inquiry, Amando T. Alvis (Chief, General Administrative Service) citedChap. 5.49 of the Handbook of Information on the Philippine Civil Service which statesthat when an employee is on leave without pay on a day before or on a day immediately

preceding a Saturday, Sunday or Holiday, such Saturday, Sunday or Holiday shall alsobe without pay.

- Petitioner then sent a letter to the CSC Chairman questioning said rule. Petitionercontends that said regulation fails to find support in law and that the withholding ordeduction is tantamount to a deprivation of property without due process of law.

- In a subsequent resolution, the Commission ruled in favor of the deduction with thefollowing rationale:

The rationale for the above ruling which applies only to those employees who are beingpaid on monthly basis, rests on the assumption that having been absent on either

Monday or Friday, one who has no leave credits, could not be favorably credited withintervening days had the same been working days. Hence, the above policy that for anemployee on leave without pay to be entitled to salary on Saturdays, Sundays orholidays, the same must occur between the dates where the said employee actuallyrenders service. To rule otherwise would allow an employee who is on leave of absent(sic) without pay for a long period of time to be entitled to payment of his salarycorresponding to Saturdays, Sundays or holidays. It also discourages the employees whohave exhausted their leave credits from absenting themselves on a Friday or Monday inorder to have a prolonged weekend, resulting in the prejudice of the government and thepublic in general.

- Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied thus thepresent petition.

Issue:1. Whether the assailed policy is valid;2. Whether petitioner is entitled to recover the withheld amount

Ruling: POLICY IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH LEGISLATIVE INTENT

1. Developments during the pendency of the action


2/6

During the pendency of this petition, the respondent Commission promulgated ResolutionNo. 91-540 dated 23 April 1991 amending the questioned policy, considering that employeespaid on a monthly basis are not required to work on Saturdays, Sunday or Holidays. In saidamendatory Resolution, the respondent Commission resolved "to adopt the policy that whenan employee, regardless of whether he has leave credits or not, is absent without pay on dayimmediately preceding or succeeding Saturday, Sunday or holiday, he shall not be

considered absent on those days." Memorandum Circular No. 16 Series of 1991 dated 26April 1991, was also issued by CSC Chairman Sto. Tomas adopting and promulgating thenew policy and directing the Heads of Departments, Bureaus and Agencies in the nationaland local governments, including government-owned or controlled corporations with originalcharters, to oversee the strict implementation of the circular.

Because of these developments, it would seem at first blush that this petition has becomemoot and academic since the very CSC policy being questioned has already been amendedand, in effect, Resolutions No. 90-497 and 90-797, subject of this petition forcertiorari, havealready been set aside and superseded. But the issue of whether or not the policy that hadbeen adopted and in force since 1965 is valid or not, remains unresolved. Thus, for reasonsof public interest and public policy, it is the duty of the Court to make a formal ruling on thevalidity or invalidity of such questioned policy.

2. Ruling on the Issue

When an administrative or executive agency renders an opinion or issues a statement ofpolicy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law; and the administrative interpretation of thelaw is at best advisory, for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means. 8 Ithas also been held that interpretative regulations need not be published. 9

In promulgating as early as 12 February 1965 the questioned policy, the Civil ServiceCommission interpreted the provisions of Republic Act No. 2625 (which took effect on 17June 1960) amending the Revised Administrative Code

xxx xxx xxx

The Civil Service Commission in its here questioned Resolution No. 90-797 construed R.A.2625 as referring only to government employees who have earned leave credits againstwhich their absences may be charged with pay, as its letters speak only ofleaves of absencewith full pay. The respondent Commission ruled that a reading of R.A. 2625 does not showthat a government employee who is on leave of absence without payon a day before orimmediately preceding a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday is entitled to payment of hissalary for said days.

Administrative construction, if we may repeat, is not necessarily binding upon the courts.Action of an administrative agency may be disturbed or set aside by the judicialdepartment if there is an error of law, or abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction or graveabuse of discretion clearly conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of a legislativeenactment. 10

We find this petition to be impressed with merit.

As held in Hidalgo vs. Hidalgo: 11


3/6

. . . . where the true intent of the law is clear that calls for the application of thecardinal rule of statutory construction that such intent or spirit must prevail over theletter thereof, for whatever is within the spirit of a statute is within the statute, sinceadherence to the letter would result in absurdity, injustice and contradictions andwould defeat the plain and vital purpose of the statute.

The intention of the legislature in the enactment of R.A. 2625 may be gleaned from, amongothers, the sponsorship speech of Senator Arturo M. Tolentino during the second reading ofHouse Bill No. 41 (which became R.A. 2625). He said:

The law actually provides for sick leave and vacation leave of 15 days each year ofservice to be with full pay. But under the present law, in computing these periods ofleaves, Saturday, Sunday and holidays are included in the computation so that if anemployee should become sick and absent himself on a Friday and then he reportsfor work on a Tuesday, in the computation of the leave the Saturday and Sunday willbe included, so that he will be considered as having had a leave of Friday, Saturday,Sunday and Monday, or four days.

The purpose of the present bill is to exclude from the computation of the leave thosedays, Saturdays and Sundays, as well as holidays, because actually the employee isentitled not to go to office during those days. And it is unfair and unjust to him that thosedays should be counted in the computation of leaves. 12

With this in mind, the construction by the respondent Commission of R.A. 2625 is not inaccordance with the legislative intent. R.A. 2625 specifically provides that governmentemployees are entitledto fifteen (15) days vacation leave of absence with full pay and fifteen(15) days sick leave with full pay, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays in bothcases. Thus, the law speaks of the granting of a right and the law does not provide for adistinction between those who have accumulated leave credits and those who haveexhausted their leave credits in order to enjoy such right. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nosdistinguere debemus. The fact remains that government employees, whether or not they

have accumulated leave credits, are not required by law to work on Saturdays, Sundays andHolidays and thus they cannot be declared absent on such non-working days. They cannotbe or are not considered absent on non-working days; they cannot and should not bedeprived of their salary corresponding to said non-working days just because they wereabsent without pay on the day immediately prior to, or after said non-working days. Adifferent rule would constitute a deprivation of property without due process.

Furthermore, before their amendment by R.A. 2625, Sections 284 and 285-A of the RevisedAdministrative Code applied to all government employee without any distinction. It followsthat the effect of the amendment similarly applies to all employees enumerated in Sections284 and 285-A, whether or not they have accumulated leave credits.

3. Effect of Invalidity

As the questioned CSC policy is here declared invalid, we are next confronted with thequestion of what effect such invalidity will have. Will all government employees on a monthlysalary basis, deprived of their salaries corresponding to Saturdays, Sundays or legalholidays (as herein petitioner was so deprived) since 12 February 1965, be entitled torecover the amounts corresponding to such non-working days?


4/6

The general rule vis-a-vis legislation is that an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confersno rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legalcontemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. 13

But, as held in Chicot County Drainage District vs. Baxter State Bank: 14

. . . . It is quite clear, however, that such broad statements as to the effect of adetermination of unconstitutionality must be taken with qualifications. The actualexistence of a statute, prior to such determination is an operative fact and may haveconsequences which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always be erasedby a new judicial declaration. The effect of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity mayhave to be considered in various aspects with respect to particular relations,individual and corporate; and particular conduct, private and official.

To allow all the affected government employees, similarly situated as petitioner herein, toclaim their deducted salaries resulting from the past enforcement of the herein invalidatedCSC policy, would cause quite a heavy financial burden on the national and localgovernments considering the length of time that such policy has been effective. Also,

administrative and practical considerations must be taken into account if this ruling will havea strict restrospective application. The Court, in this connection, calls upon the respondentCommission and the Congress of the Philippines, if necessary, to handle this problem with

justice and equity to all affected government employees.

It must be pointed out, however, that after CSC Memorandum Circular No. 16 Series of 1991 amending the herein invalidated policy was promulgated on 26 April 1991, deductionsfrom salaries made after said date in contravention of the new CSC policy must be restoredto the government employees concerned.

Javellana vs. DILG212 SCRA 475 (1992)

Facts:- The case seeks to resolve the question regarding the right of a public official to engage

in the practice of his profession while employed in the Government.

- Petitioner in this case, a lawyer, was an elected City Councilor of Bago City, NegrosOccidental against whom an administrative case was filed. The complaint alleged:

o That Atty. Javellana has continuously engaged in the practice of law despitebeing a city councilor, without securing authority from the Regional Director of theDepartment of Local Government as required by DLG Memorandum Circular No.80-38 in relation to DLG Memorandum Circular No. 74-58 of the same department;

o That on July 8, 1989, Javellana, as counsel for Antonio Javiero and RolandoCatapang, filed a case against City Engineer Ernesto C. Divinagracia of Bago City for"Illegal Dismissal and Reinstatement with Damages" putting him in public ridicule;

o That Javellana also appeared as counsel in several criminal and civil cases in thecity, without prior authority of the DLG Regional Director


5/6

- During the pendency of the action, Secretary Luis T. Santos issued MemorandumCircular No. 90-81 setting forth guidelines and regulating the practice of profession bylocal elective officials.

- Thereafter, on October 10, 1991 the Local Government Code was signed into law, Sec.90 of which provides:

Sec. 90. Practice of Profession. (a) All governors, city and municipal mayors areprohibited from practicing their profession or engaging in any occupation other thanthe exercise of their functions as local chief executives.

(b) Sanggunian members may practice their professions, engage in any occupation,or teach in schools except during session hours: Provided, That sanggunianmembers who are members of the Bar shall not:

(1)Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein alocal government unit or any office, agency, or instrumentality of thegovernment is the adverse party;

(2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer oremployee of the national or local government is accused of anoffense committed in relation to his office;

(3) Collect any fee for their appearance in administrativeproceedings involving the local government unit of which he is anofficial; and

(4) Use property and personnel of the Government except when thesanggunian member concerned is defending the interest of theGovernment.

(c) Doctors of medicine may practice their profession even during official hours ofwork only on occasions of emergency: Provided, That the officials concerned do notderive monetary compensation therefrom. (Emphasis ours.)

- Atty. Javellana thereupon filed a petition for certiorari praying that DLG MemorandumCirculars Nos. 80-38 and 90-81 and Sec. 90 of the new Local Government Code (RA7160) be declared unconstitutional on the following grounds:

o It violates Art. VIII Sec. 5 of the Constitution on the power of the SC topromulgate rules regarding the practice of law

o It constitutes a class legislation, being discriminatory against the legal andmedical professions for only Sangunian members who are lawyers and doctors

are restricted in the exercise of their profession while dentists, engineers,architects, teachers, opticians, morticians and others are not so restricted

Issue:1. Whether the assailed resolutions are unconstitutional

Ruling: DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT


6/6

As a matter of policy, this Court accords great respect to the decisions and/or actions ofadministrative authorities not only because of the doctrine of separation of powers but alsofor their presumed knowledgeability and expertise in the enforcement of laws and regulationsentrusted to their jurisdiction (Santiago vs. Deputy Executive Secretary, 192 SCRA 199,citing Cuerdo vs. COA, 166 SCRA 657). With respect to the present case, we find no graveabuse of discretion on the part of the respondent, Department of Interior and Local

Government (DILG), in issuing the questioned DLG Circulars Nos. 80-30 and 90-81 and indenying petitioner's motion to dismiss the administrative charge against him.

In the first place, complaints against public officers and employees relating or incidental tothe performance of their duties are necessarily impressed with public interest for by expressconstitutional mandate, a public office is a public trust. The complaint for illegal dismissalfiled by Javiero and Catapang against City Engineer Divinagracia is in effect a complaintagainst the City Government of Bago City, their real employer, of which petitioner Javellanais a councilman. Hence, judgment against City Engineer Divinagracia would actually be a

judgment against the City Government. By serving as counsel for the complainingemployees and assisting them to prosecute their claims against City Engineer Divinagracia,the petitioner violated Memorandum Circular No. 74-58 (in relation to Section 7[b-2] of RA6713) prohibiting a government official from engaging in the private practice of hisprofession, if such practice would represent interests adverse to the government.

Petitioner's contention that Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and DLGMemorandum Circular No. 90-81 violate Article VIII, Section 5 of the Constitution iscompletely off tangent. Neither the statute nor the circular trenches upon the SupremeCourt's power and authority to prescribe rules on the practice of law. The Local GovernmentCode and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 simply prescribe rules of conduct for publicofficials to avoid conflicts of interest between the discharge of their public duties and theprivate practice of their profession, in those instances where the law allows it.

Section 90 of the Local Government Code does not discriminate against lawyers anddoctors. It applies to all provincial and municipal officials in the professions or engaged in

any occupation. Section 90 explicitly provides that sanggunian members "may practice theirprofessions, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools expect during session hours." Ifthere are some prohibitions that apply particularly to lawyers, it is because of all theprofessions, the practice of law is more likely than others to relate to, or affect, the area ofpublic service.

4. Peralta and Javellana

Documents

Transcript of 4. Peralta and Javellana