stat con cases

Caltextvs Palomar 18 SCRA 247 G.R. No. L-19650Caltex Philippines, Inc., petitioner-appellee Vs. Enrico Palomar, in his capacity as The Postmaster General, respondent-appellantFACTS: In the year !"#, Caltex Philippines concei$ed and laid the %ro&nd 'or( )or a promotional scheme calc&lated to dr&m &p patrona%e )or its oil prod&cts. The contest 'as entitled *Caltex +ooded P&mp Contest,, 'hich calls )or participants to estimate the act&al n&m-er o) liters as hooded %as p&mp at each Caltex station 'ill dispense d&rin% a speci)ic period.Foreseein% the extensi$e &se o) the mails not only as amon%st the media )or p&-lici.in% the contest -&t also )or the transmission o) comm&nications, representations 'ere made -y Caltex 'ith the postal a&thorities )or the contest to -e cleared in ad$ance )or mailin%. This 'as )ormali.ed in a letter sent -y Caltex to the Post master General, dated /cto-er 0, !"#, in 'hich Caltex, thr& its co&nsel, encloseda copy o) the contest r&les and endea$ored to 1&sti)y its position that the contest does not $iolate the *The Anti-2ottery Pro$isions o) the Postal 2a',.3n)ort&nately, the Palomar, the actin% Postmaster General denied Caltex4s re5&est statin% that the contest scheme )alls 'ithin the p&r$ie' o) the Anti-lottery Pro$ision and &ltimately, declined Clatex4s re5&est )or clearance.Caltex so&%ht reconsideration, stressin% that there -ein% no consideration in$ol$ed in part o) the contestant, the contest 'as not commenda-le as a lottery. +o'e$er, the Postmaster General maintained his $ie' that the contest in$ol$es consideration, or e$en it does not in$ol$e any consideration it still )alls as *Gi)t Enterprise,, 'hich 'as e5&ally -anned -y the Postal 2a'.ISS!"#$et$er t$e %et&t&o' states a s())&*&e't *a(se o) a*t&o' )or +e*larator, rel&e)-#$et$er or 'ot t$e s*$eme %ro%ose+ ., Caltex t$e a%%ellee &s /&t$&' t$e *overa0e o) t$e %ro$&.&t&ve %rov&s&o's o) t$e Postal La/-1!L2"I. 6y express mandate o) Sectiono) 7&le "" o) the old 7&les o) Co&rt 'hich deals 'ith the applica-ility to in$o(e declaratory relie) 'hich states: *8eclaratory relie) is a$aila-le to person 'hose ri%hts are a))ected -y a stat&te, to determine any 5&estion o) constr&ction or $alidity arisin% &nder thestat&te and )or a declaration o) ri%hts there&nder.In ampli)ication, con)orma-ly esta-lished 1&rispr&dence on the matter, laid do'n certain conditions:There m&st -e a 1&sticia-le contro$ersy. The contro$ersy m&st -e -et'een persons 'hose interests are ad$erse.The party see(in% declaratory relie) m&st ha$e a le%al interest in the contro$ersy.The iss&e in$ol$ed m&st -e ripe )or 1&dicial determination.9ith the appellee4s -ent to hold the contest and the appellant4s threat to iss&e a )ra&d order i) carried o&t, the contenders are con)ronted -y an omino&s shado' o) imminent and ine$ita-le liti%ation &nless their di))erences are settled and sta-ili.ed -y a declaration. And, contrary to the insin&ation o) the appellant, the time is lon% past 'hen it can ri%htly -e said that merely the appellee4s *desires are th'arted -y its o'n do&-ts, or -y the )ears o) others, : 'hich admittedly does not con)er a ca&se o) action. 8o&-t, i) any there 'as, has ripened into a 1&sticia-le contro$ersy 'hen, as in the case at -ar, it 'as translated into a positi$e claim o) ri%ht 'hich is act&ally contested.Co'str(*t&o'3Is the art or process o) disco$erin% and expo&ndin% the meanin% and intention o) the a&thors o) the la' 'ith respect to its application to a %i$en case, 'here that intention is rendered do&-t)&l, amon%st others, -y reason o) the )act that the %i$en case is not explicitly pro$ided )or in the la'.It is not amiss to point o&t at this 1&nct&re that the concl&sion 'e ha$e herein 1&st reached is not 'itho&t precedent. In 2i-erty Calendar Co. $s. Cohen, ! ;.d., ?@=, 'here a corporation en%a%ed in promotional ad$ertisin% 'as ad$ised -y the co&nty prosec&tor that its proposed sales promotion plan had the characteristics o) a lottery, and that i) s&ch sales promotion 'ere cond&cted, the corporation 'o&ld -e s&-1ect to criminal prosec&tion, it 'as held that the corporation 'as entitled to maintain a declaratory relie) action a%ainst the co&nty prosec&tor to determine the le%ality o) its sales promotion plan.II. Is the Contest Scheme a 2otteryA2ottery - Extends to all schemes )or the distri-&tion o) pri.es -y chancee.%. policy playin%, %i)t exhi-itions, pri.e concerts, ra))les and )airs as 'ell as $ario&s )orms o) %am-lin%.4$ree !sse't&al !leme'ts" Co's&+erat&o'5Pr&6e5C$a'*e;o, accordin% to the S&preme Co&rt, the contest scheme is not a lottery -&t it appears to -e more o) a %rat&ito&s distri-&tion since no'here in the r&les is any re5&irements that any )ee -e paid, any merchandise -e -o&%ht, any ser$ices -e rendered, or any $al&e 'hatsoe$er -e %i$en )or the pri$ile%e to participate. Since, a prospecti$e contestant has to do is %o to a Caltex Station, re5&est )or the entry )orm 'hich is a$aila-le on demand and accomplish and s&-mit the same )or the dra'in% o) the 'inner. 6eca&se o) this, the contest )ails to exhi-it any discerni-le consideration 'hich 'o&ld -rand it as a lottery.Boreo$er, the la' does not condemn the %rat&ito&s distri-&tion o) property -y chance, i) no consideration is deri$ed directly or indirectly )rom the party recei$in% the chance, -&t it does condemnas criminal scheme in 'hich a $al&a-le consideration o) some (ind is paid directly or indirectly )or the chance to dra' a pri.e.Is the scheme, as sales promotion 'hich 'o&ld -ene)it the sponsor in the 'ay o) increased patrona%e -e considered as a consideration and th&s $iolates the Postal 2a'A;o, the re5&ired element o) consideration does not consist o) the -ene)it deri$ed -y the sponsors o) the contest. The tr&e test lies on 'hether or not the participant pays a $al&a-le consideration )or the chance o) 'innin% and not 'hether or not those cond&ctin% the enterprise recei$er somethin% o) $al&e)or the distri-&tion o) the pri.e.Is t$e Co'test S*$eme a G&)t !'ter%r&se-E$en i) the term Gi)t Enterprise is not yet de)ined explicitly, there appears to -e a consens&s amon% lexico%raphers and standard a&thorities that the term is common applied to a sportin% arti)ice o) &nder'hich %oods are sold )or their mar(et $al&e -&t -y 'ay o) ind&cement to p&rchase the prod&ct, the p&rchaser is %i$en a chance to 'in a pri.e.And th&s, the term o) %i)t enterprise cannot -e esta-lished in the case at -ar since there is not sale o) anythin% to 'hich the chance o))ered is attached as an ind&cement to the p&rchaser. The contest is open to all 5&ali)ied contestant irrespecti$e o) 'hether or not they -&y the appellee4s prod&cts.The lesson that 'e deri$e )rom this state o) the pertinent 1&rispr&dence is that e$ery case m&st -e resol$ed &pon the partic&lar phraseolo%y o) the applica-le stat&tory pro$ision. It is only lo%ical that the term &nder a constr&ction sho&ld -e accorded no other meanin% than that 'hich is consistent 'iththe nat&re o) the 'ord associated there'ith.In the end, the S&preme Co&rt r&led o&t that &nder the prohi-iti$e pro$ision o) the Postal 2a', %i)t enterprise and similar schemes therein contemplated are condemna-le only i), li(e lotteries, they in$ol$e the element o) consideration. Findin% non in the contest, it 'as r&led o&t that the appellee may not -e denied the &se o) the mails )or the p&rpose thereo).Nat&o'al 7e+erat&o' o) La.or v. !&sma- GR No. 108586Constr&ction is re5&ired to determine 1&risdiction. The )irst and )&ndamental d&ty o) co&rts is to apply the la'. Constr&ction and interpretation come onlya)ter it has -een demonstrated that application is impossi-le or inade5&ate 'itho&t them. +o'e$er, 1&risdiction o$er the s&-1ect matter in a 1&dicial proceedin% is con)erred -y the so$erei%n a&thority, 'hich or%ani.es the co&rtC and it is %i$en only -y la'. o) the 7e$ised Administrati$e Code as amended -y Common'ealth Act ;o. D" and )&rther amended -y 7.A. ?. /n A&%&st 0, !">, the acc&sed 'as disco$ered to ha$e in its possession and control a home-made re$ol$er cal. >> 'ith no license permit. In the co&rt proceedin%, the acc&sed admitted that he o'ns the %&n and a))irmed that it has no license. The acc&sed )&rther stated that he is a secret a%ent appointed -y Go$. 2e$iste o) 6atan%as and sho'ed e$idences o) appointment. In his de)ense, the acc&sed presented the case o) People $s. Bacarandan%, statin% that he m&st ac5&itted -eca&se he is asecret a%ent and 'hich may 5&ali)y into peace o))icers e5&i$alent to m&nicipal police 'hich is co$ered -y Art. @=!.Iss&e:9hether or not holdin% a position o) secret a%ent o) the Go$ernor is a proper de)ense to ille%al possession o) )irearms.7&lin%:The S&preme Co&rt in its decision a))irmed the lo'er co&rt4s decision. It stated that the la' is explicitthat except as therea)ter speci)ically allo'ed, Jit shall -e &nla')&l )or any person to . . . possess any)irearm, detached parts o) )irearms or amm&nition there)or, or any instr&ment or implement &sed orintendedto-e&sedintheman&)act&reo) )irearms, partso) )irearms, oramm&nition.J Thenextsectionpro$idesthatJ)irearmsandamm&nitionre%&larlyandla')&llyiss&edtoo))icers, soldiers,sailors, or marines Ko) the Armed Forces o) the PhilippinesL, the Philippine Consta-&lary, %&ards in theemployment o) the 6&rea& o) Prisons, m&nicipalpolice, pro$incial%o$ernors, lie&tenant %o$ernors,pro$incial treas&rers, m&nicipal treas&rers, m&nicipal mayors, and %&ards o) pro$incial prisoners and1ails,J are not co$ered J'hen s&ch )irearms are in possession o) s&ch o))icials and p&-lic ser$ants )or&se in the per)ormance o) their o))icial d&ties.The Co&rt constr&ed that there is no pro$ision )or the secret a%entC incl&din% it in the list there)ore theacc&sed is not exempted. 2aoa'0 v. ;('&*&%al :(+0e o) Sa' N&*olasAdoption &nder parao) Art. 00D o) the Ci$il Code. The 'ords &sed in para%raph GH o) Article 00D o) the Ci$il Code, in en&meratin% the persons 'ho cannot adopt, are clear and &nam-i%&o&s. 9hen the ;e' Ci$il Code 'as adopted, it chan%ed the 'ord*descendant,, )o&nd in the Spanish Ci$il Code to 'hich the ;e' Ci$il Code 'as patterned, to *children., The children th&s mentioned ha$e a clearly de)ined meanin% in la' and do not incl&de %randchildren. In the present case, 7oderic( and 7ommel 8aoan%, the %randchildren o) Antero A%onoyand Amanda 7amos-A%onoy, cannot assail the adoption o) M&irino 6onilla and 9ilson Barcos -y the A%onoys. There)ore, the %eneral r&le is that only stat&tes 'ith an am-i%&o&s or do&-t)&l meanin% may-e the s&-1ects o) stat&tory constr&ction.Facts:/n >0 Barch !=, spo&ses Antero and Amanda A%onoy )iled a petition 'ith the B&nicipal Co&rt o) San ;icolas, Ilocos ;orte see(in% the adoption o) minors M&irino 6onilla and 9ilson Barcos. +o'e$er, minors 7oderic( and 7ommel 8aoan%, assisted -y their )ather and %&ardian ad litem, the petitioners herein )iled an opposition to the said adoption. They contended that the spo&ses Antero and Amanda A%onoy had a le%itimate da&%hter named Estrella A%onoy, oppositors mother, 'ho died onBarch !=, and there)ore said spo&ses 'ere dis5&ali)ied to adopt &nder Article 00D o) the Ci$il Code, 'hich pro$ides that those 'ho ha$e le%itimate, le%itimated, ac(no'led%ed nat&ral children or children -y le%al )iction cannot adopt.Iss&e: 9hether the spo&ses Antero A%onoy and Amanda 7amos are dis5&ali)ied to adopt &nder para%rapho) Article 00D o) the Ci$il Code.+eld:The 'ords &sed in para%raph GH o) Article 00D o) the Ci$il Code, in en&meratin% the persons 'ho cannot adopt, are clear and &nam-i%&o&s. 9hen the ;e' Ci$il Code 'as adopted, it chan%ed the 'ord*descendant,, )o&nd in the Spanish Ci$il Code to 'hich the ;e' Ci$il Code 'as patterned, to *children., The children th&s mentioned ha$e a clearly de)ined meanin% in la' and do not incl&de %randchildren. 9ell (no'n is the r&le o) stat&tory constr&ction to the e))ect that a stat&te clear and &nam-i%&o&s on its )ace need not -e interpreted. The r&le is that only stat&tes 'ith an am-i%&o&s or do&-t)&l meanin% may -e the s&-1ects o) stat&tory constr&ction. In the present case, 7oderic( and 7ommel 8aoan%, the %randchildren o) Antero A%onoy and Amanda 7amos-A%onoy, cannot assail the adoption o) M&irino 6onilla and 9ilson Barcos -y the A%onoys.The S&preme Co&rt denied the petition, and a))irmed the 1&d%ment o) the B&nicipal Co&rt o) San ;icolas, Ilocos ;orte GSpecial Proceedin%s 0=H, 'tho&t prono&ncement as to costs.Paras v. Comele*Is SN to -e considered a re%&lar local election in a recall proceedin%A The s&-1ect pro$ision o) the 2ocal Go$ernment Code, Sec. =? Para%raph G-H pro$ides that *;o recall shall ta(e place 'ithin one year )rom the date o) the o))icial4s ass&mption to o))ice or one year immediately precedin% a re%&lar local election,. +ence, It is a r&le in stat&tory constr&ction that e$ery part o) the stat&te m&st -e interpreted 'ith re)erence to the context. In the present case, the San%%&nian% Na-ataan elections cannot -e considered a re%&lar election, as this 'o&ld render in&tile the recall pro$ision o) the 2ocal Go$ernment Code. It 'o&ld -e more in (eepin% 'ith the intent o) the recall pro$ision o) the Code to constr&e re%&lar local election as one re)errin% to an election 'here the o))ice held -y the local electi$e o))icial so&%ht to -e recalled 'ill -e contested and -e )illed -y the electorate.7AC4S"A petition )or recall 'as )iled a%ainst Paras, 'ho is the inc&m-ent P&non% 6aran%ay. The recallelection 'as de)erred d&e to Petitioner4s opposition that &nder Sec. =? o) 7A ;o. ="#, no recall shallta(e place 'ithin one year )rom the date o) the o))icial4sass&mption to o))ice oroneyearimmediately precedin% a re%&larlocal election. Since the San%%&nian% Na-ataan GSNH election'as set on the )irst Bonday o) Bay >##", no recall may -e instit&ted.ISS!"9O; the SN election is a local election.1!L2";o. E$erypart o) thestat&tem&st -einterpreted'ithre)erencetoitscontext,andit m&st -econsidered to%etherand (ept s&-ser$ient to its %eneralintent. The e$ident intent o) Sec. =? is tos&-1ect an electi$e local o))icial to recall once d&rin% his term, as pro$ided in par. GaH and par. G-H.Thespirit,rather thantheletter o) ala', determinesitsconstr&ction.Th&s,interpretin%thephrase*re%&lar localelection, to incl&de SN election 'ill &nd&ly circ&mscri-e the Code )or there 'ill ne$er -ea recall election renderin% in&tile the pro$ision.In interpretin% a stat&te,the Co&rt ass&med that thele%islat&re intended to enact an e))ecti$e la'. An interpretation sho&ld-e a$oided&nder'hichastat&teorpro$ision-ein% constr&edisde)eated, meanin%less,inoperati$e or n&%atory.#$e' &s &t *o'str(*t&o' a'+ /$e' &s &t " 'ith =?! s5. m. land area in his name on Bay >#, !@# 'ith a sho'in% o) -ad )aith (no'in%ly that he only o'ns ?#D s5. m. o) land portion in 2ot >" as sold -y his )ather to him 'hich the latter inherited )rom Enri5&e. 2ito 2on%alon% and Paciencia Bariano 'ho -o&%ht a portion o) land in 2ot >" o)?! s5. m. land area -ro&%ht an action )or recon$eyance on the said lot on ;o$em-er >>, !@D. Anselmo contends that s&ch action already prescri-ed in ? years as pro$ided in article 0! Gaction -e-ro&%ht )or ann&lment 'ithin ? yrs &pon disco$ery o) )ra&d.H +o'e$er, the CA r&led that the prescription periods in the case at -ar is # years accordin% to Art. ??.Iss(e"9hether or not the prescription period r&ns in ? years Gaccordin% to Art. 0! o) the Ci$ilCodeH or # years Gaccordin% to Art. ?? o) the Ci$il CodeHAR(l&'0"9ith the e$idence o) )ra&d and the iss&e in$ol$in% a real property, the co&rt r&ledthat Article ?? o) the Ci$il Codepro$ides that the prescripti$e period )or the recon$eyance o))ra&d&lentlyre%istered real property istenG#Hyearsrec(oned)romthedateo) theiss&anceo)the certi)icate o) title and sho&ld %o$ern in the case at -ar. The action has not prescri-ed. Ga%&sa'a' '0 m0a ;a'00a0a/a v. ;a'&la Ra&lroa+ Com%a',G7 2->D0", >@ Fe-r&ary !=! G@@ SC7A ""HSecond 8i$ision, Fernando GpH: D conc&r,too( no part7a*ts" There are no antecedent facts available for this case.The &nion see(s re$ersal o) decision o) the lo'er co&rt dismissin% its petition )or mandam&s. The co&rtdetermined 7ep&-lic Act >#>0 'as enacted only to compel the employer to ma(e the ded&ction o) the employees4 de-t )rom the latter4s salary and t&rn this o$er to the employees4 credit &nionC -&t 'hich does not con$ert the credit &nion4s credit into a )irst priority credit.Iss(e" 9hether, indeed, the la' does not %i$e )irst priority in the matter o) payments to the o-li%ations o) employees in )a$or o) their credit &nions.1el+" 9here the stat&tory norm spea(s &ne5&i$ocally, there is nothin% )or the co&rts to do except to apply it. The la', lea$in% no do&-t as to the scope o) its operation, m&st -e o-eyed. The express pro$isions o) the ;e' Ci$il Code, Articles >>?, >>?> and >>?? sho' the le%islati$e intent on pre)erence o) credits. In the present case, the applica-le pro$ision o) 7ep&-lic Act >#>0 spea(s )or itsel)C there -ein% no am-i%&ity, it is to -e applied. I) the le%islati$e intent in enactin% para%raphsand > o) Section "> o) 7A >#>0 'ere to %i$e )irst priority in the matter o) payments to the o-li%ations o) employees in )a$or o) their credit &nions, then, the la' 'o&ld ha$e so expressly declared. There is nothin% in the pro$ision o) 7ep&-lic Act >#>0 'hich pro$ides that o-li%ation o) la-orers and employeespaya-le to credit &nions shall en1oy )irst priority in the ded&ction )rom the employees4 'a%es and salaries.The S&preme Co&rt a))irmed the appealed decision, 'itho&t prono&ncement as to costs. A.ella'a v. ;arava HGR L-277605 29 ;a, 1974ISecond 8i$ision, Fernando GpH: ? conc&r,conc&r -ased on para%raph > E 07a*ts" Francisco A-ellana 'as char%ed 'ith the City Co&rt o) /.amis City 'ith the crime o) physical in1&ries thro&%h rec(less impr&dence in dri$in% his car%o tr&c(, hittin% a motori.ed pedica- res&ltin% inin1&ries to its passen%ers, namely, Barcelo 2amason, Baria G&rrea, Pacienciosa Flores, and Estelita ;emeQo. A-ellana 'as )o&nd %&ilty as char%ed, dama%es in )a$or o) the o))ended parties li(e'ise -ein% a'arded.A-ellana appealed s&ch decision to the CFI. At this sta%e, 2amason et.al. )iled 'ith another -ranch o) the CFI o) Bisamis /ccidental a separate and independent ci$il action )or dama%es alle%edly s&))ered -y them )rom the rec(less dri$in% o) A-ellana. In s&ch complaint, Crispin A-ellana, the alle%ed employer, 'as incl&ded as de)endant. 6oth o) them then so&%ht the dismissal o) s&ch action principallyon the %ro&nd that there 'as no reser$ation )or the )ilin% thereo) in the City Co&rt o) /.amis. It 'as ar%&ed -y them that it 'as not allo'a-le at the sta%e 'here the criminal case 'as already on appeal. The 1&d%e in the latter CFI ordered on >@ April !"= that the City Co&rt 1&d%ment is $acated and a trail de no$o -e cond&cted. +e noted that the o))ended parties )ailed to expressly 'ai$e the ci$il actionor reser$ed their ri%ht to instit&te it separately in the City Co&rtC -&t 'hich they )iled in the CFI. In $ie' o) the 'ai$er and reser$ation, the Co&rt 'o&ld -e precl&ded )rom 1&d%in% ci$il dama%es a%ainst the acc&sed and in )a$or o) the o))ended parties. the motion to dismiss is denied. A motion )or reconsideration 'as li(e'ise denied. +ence, the petition.The S&preme Co&rt dismissed the petition 'ith costs a%ainst petitioners.1.A%%eal o) 0, People $. 0.2.A stat(te m(st 'ot .e *o'str(e+ &' a ma''er 0&v&'0 r&se to a *o'st&t(t&o'al +o(.tA co&rt is to a$oid constr&in% a stat&te or le%al norm in s&ch a manner as 'o&ld %i$e rise to a constit&tional do&-t. The %rant o) po'er to the Co&rt, -oth in the present Constit&tion and &nder the !0D Charter, does not extend to any dimin&tion, increase or modi)ication o) s&-stanti$e ri%ht. Th&s, s&-stanti$e ri%ht cannot to -e )rittered a'ay -y a constr&ction that co&ld render it n&%atory, i) thro&%h o$ersi%ht, the o))ended parties )ailed at the initial sta%e to see( reco$ery )or dama%es in a ci$il s&it. Article 00 o) the Ci$il Code is 5&ite clear 'hen it pro$ides that in cases o) . physical in1&ries, a ci$il action )or dama%es, entirely separate and distinct )rom the criminal action, may -e -ro&%ht -y the in1&red party. S&ch ci$il action shall proceed independently o) the criminal prosec&tion, and shall re5&ire only a preponderance o) e$idence.8.Ass(ra'*e o) %art&es SC7A 0!"HSecond 8i$ision, Fernando GpH: ? conc&rrin%7a*ts" In the certi)ication election held on Fe-r&ary >=, !=", respondent 3nion o-tained ?>! $otes as a%ainst ?? o) petitioner 3nion. A%ain, admittedly, &nder the 7&les and 7e%&lations implementin% the present 2a-or Code, a ma1ority o) the $alid $otes cast s&))ices )or certi)ication o) the $ictorio&s la-or &nion as the sole and excl&si$e -ar%ainin% a%ent. There 'ere )o&r $otes cast -y employees 'ho did not 'ant any &nion. /n its )ace there)ore, respondent 3nion o&%ht to ha$e -een certi)ied in accordance 'ith the a-o$e applica-le r&le. Petitioner, &ndeterred, 'o&ld sei.e &pon the doctrine anno&nced in the case o) Allied 9or(ers Association o) the Philippines $. Co&rt o) Ind&strial 7elations that spoiled -allots sho&ld -e co&nted in determinin% the $alid $otes cast. Considerin% there 'ere se$enteen spoiled -allots, it is the s&-mission that there 'as a %ra$e a-&se o) discretion on the part o)respondent 8irector.Iss(e" 9hether 8irector ;oriel acted 'ith %ra$e a-&se o) discretion in %rantin% ;AF23 as the excl&si$e -ar%ainin% a%ent o) all the employees in the Philippine 6loomin% Bills1el+" 8irector ;oriel did not act 'ith %ra$e a-&se o) discretion. Certiorari does not lie. The concl&sion reached -y the Co&rt deri$es s&pport )rom the deser$edly hi%h rep&te attached to the constr&ction placed -y the exec&ti$e o))icials entr&sted 'ith the responsi-ility o) applyin% a stat&te. The 7&les and 7e%&lations implementin% the present 2a-or Code 'ere iss&ed -y Secretary 6las /ple o) the 8epartment o) 2a-or and too( e))ect on 0 Fe-r&ary !=D, the present 2a-or Code ha$in% -een made (no'n to the p&-lic as )ar -ac( asBay!=?, altho&%h its date o) e))ecti$ity 'as postponed to;o$em-er !=?,. It 'o&ld appear then that there 'as more than eno&%h time )or a really serio&s and care)&l st&dy o) s&ch s&ppletory r&les and re%&lations to a$oid any inconsistency 'ith the Code. This Co&rt certainly cannot i%nore the interpretation therea)ter em-odied in the 7&les. As )ar -ac( as In re Allen,, a !#0 decision, D. This increase 'as implemented e))ecti$eBay !== -y the company.The contro$ersy arose 'hen the petitioner &nion so&%ht the implementation o) the ne%otiated 'a%e increase o) P#.@# as pro$ided )or in the collecti$e -ar%ainin% a%reement. The company alle%es that it has opted to consider the P#.@# daily 'a%e increase Gro&%hly P>> per monthH as partial compliance 'ith the re5&irements o) P8 >0, so that it iso-li%ed to pay only the -alance o) P0@ per month, contendin% that that since there 'as already a meetin% o) the minds -et'een the parties as early as > April !== a-o&t the 'a%e increases 'hich 'ere made retroacti$e toApril !==, it )ell 'ell 'ithin the exemption pro$ided )or in the 7&les Implementin% P8 >0. The 3nion, on the other hand, maintains that the li$in% allo'ance &nder P8 >0 Gori%inally P8 D>DH is distinct )rom the ne%otiated daily 'a%e increase o) P#.@#./n 0 Fe-r&ary !=@, the 3nion )iled a complaint )or &n)air la-or practice and $iolation o) the C6A a%ainst the company. /n 0# Bay !=@, an /rder 'as iss&ed -y the 2a-or Ar-iter dismissin% thecomplaint and re)erred the case to the parties to resol$e their disp&tes in accordance 'ith the machinery esta-lished in the Collecti$e 6ar%ainin% A%reement. From this order, -oth parties appealed to the Commission. /nSeptem-er !=@, the Commission GSecond 8i$isionH prom&l%ated its decision, settin% aside the order appealed )rom and enterin% a ne' one dismissin% the case )or o-$io&s lac( o) merit, relyin% on a letter o) the 3ndersecretary o) 2a-or that a%reement -et'een the parties 'as made > April !== %rantin% P>= per month retroacti$e toApril !== 'hich 'as s5&arely &nder the exceptions pro$ided )or in para%raph ( o) the r&les implementin% P8 >0. The &nion )iled )or reconsideration, -&t the Commission en -anc dismissed the same on @ Fe-r&ary !=!. +ence, the petition.Iss(e" 9hether the Commission 'as correct in determinin% the a%reement )alls &nder the exceptions.1el+" The collecti$e -ar%ainin% a%reement 'as entered into on 0 Septem-er!==, 'hen P8 >0 'as already in )orce and e))ect, altho&%h the increase on the )irst year 'as retroacti$e toApril !==. There is nothin% in the records that the ne%otiated 'a%e increases 'ere %ranted or paid -e)ore Bay !==, to allo' the company to )all 'ithin the exceptions pro$ided )or in para%raph ( o) the r&les implementin% P8 >0. There 'as neither a per)ected contract nor an act&al payment o) said increase. There 'as no %rant o) said increases yet, despite the contrary opinion expressed in the lettero) the 3ndersecretary o) 2a-or. It m&st -e noted that the letter 'as -ased on a 'ron% premise or representation on the part o) the company. The company had declared that the parties ha$e a%reed on> April !== in reco%nition o) the imperati$e need )or employees to cope &p 'ith in)lation -ro&%ht a-o&t -y, amon% others, another increase in oil price, -&t omittin% the )act that ne%otiations 'ere still -ein% held on other &nresol$ed economic and non-economic -ar%ainin% items G'hich 'ere only a%reed&pon on 0 Septem-er !==H.The 8epartment o) 2a-or had the ri%ht to constr&e the 'ord *%rant, as &sed in its r&les implementin% P8 >0, and its explanation re%ardin% the exemptions to P8 >0 sho&ld -e %i$en 'ei%htC -&t, 'hen it is -ased on misrepresentations as to the existence o) an a%reement -et'een the parties, the same cannot -e applied. There is no distinction -et'een interpretation and explainin% the extent and scope o) the la'C -eca&se 'here one explains the intent and scope o) a stat&te, he is interpretin% it. Th&s, the constr&ction or explanation o) 2a-or 3ndersecretary is not only 'ron% as it 'as p&rely -ased on a misapprehension o) )acts, -&t also &nla')&l -eca&se it %oes -eyond the scope o) the la'.The 'rit o) certiorari 'as %ranted. The S&preme Co&rt set aside the decision o) the commission, and ordered the company to pay, in addition to the increased allo'ance pro$ided )or in P8 >0, the ne%otiated 'a%e increase o) P#.@# daily e))ecti$eApril !== as 'ell as all other 'a%e increases em-odied in the Collecti$e 6ar%ainin% A%reement, to all co$ered employeesC 'ith costs a%ainst the company. IBAA !m%lo,ees '&o' v. I'*&o'0GR L524155 28 D*to.er 1984 ?182 SCRA 668ASe*o'+ 2&v&s&o'5 ;aCas&ar ?%A" 8 *o'*(r5 2 *o'*(r &' res(lt5 1 tooC 'o %art7a*ts" /n #, !=D, the 3nion )iled a complaint a%ainst the -an( )or the payment o) holiday pay -e)ore the then 8epartment o) 2a-or, ;ational 2a-or 7elations Commission, 7e%ional /))ice IV in Banila. Conciliation ha$in% )ailed, and &pon the re5&est o) -oth parties, the case 'as certi)ied )or ar-itration on = D A&%&st !=D, 2a-or Ar-iter 7icarte T. Soriano rendered a decision in the a-o$e-entitled case, %rantin% petitioner4s complaint )or payment o) holiday pay.7espondent -an( did not appeal )rom the said decision. Instead, it complied 'ith the order o) the 2a-or Ar-iter -y payin% their holiday pay &p to and incl&din% Fe-r&ary !=!, the -an( )iled 'ith the /))ice o) the Binister o) 2a-or a motion )or reconsiderationOappeal 'ith &r%ent prayer to stay exec&tion. /n 0 A&%&st !=!,s the ;27C iss&ed an order directin% the Chie) o) 7esearch and In)ormation o) the Commission to comp&te the holiday pay o) the I6AA employees )rom April !=" to the present in accordance 'ith the 2a-or Ar-iter dated >D A&%&st !=D. /n # ;o$em-er !=!, the /))ice o) the Binister o) 2a-or, thro&%h 8ep&ty Binister Amado G. Incion%, iss&ed an order settin% aside the resol&tion en -anc o) the ;27C dated ># , 'hich pro$ides that: *employees 'ho are &ni)ormly paid -y the month,irrespecti$e o) the n&m-er o) 'or(in% days therein, 'ith a salary o) not less than the stat&tory or esta-lished minim&m 'a%e shall -e pres&med to -e paid )or all days in the month 'hether 'or(ed or not., E$en i) contemporaneo&s constr&ction placed &pon a stat&te -y exec&ti$e o))icers 'hose d&ty is to en)orce it is %i$en %reat 'ei%ht -y the co&rts, still i) s&ch constr&ction is so erroneo&s, the same m&st -e declared as n&ll and $oid.So lon%, as the re%&lations relate solely to carryin% into e))ect the pro$isions o) the la', they are $alid. 9here an administrati$e order -etrays inconsistency or rep&%nancy to the pro$isions o) the Act, the mandate o) the Act m&st pre$ail and m&st -e )ollo'ed. A r&le is -indin% on the Co&rts so lon% as the proced&re )ixed )or its prom&l%ation is )ollo'ed and its scope is 'ithin the stat&tory a&thority %ranted -y the le%islat&re, e$en i) the co&rts are not in a%reement 'ith the policy stated therein or its innate 'isdom. F&rther, administrati$e interpretation o)the la' is at -est merely ad$isory, )or it is the co&rts that )inally determine 'hat the la' means.The S&preme Co&rt %ranted the petition, set aside the order o) the 8ep&ty Binister o) 2a-or, and reinstated the >D A&%&st !=D decision o) the 2a-or Ar-iter 7icarte T. Soriano. C$artere+ Ba'C !m%lo,ees Asso*&at&o' v. D%leG7 2-??==, >@ A&%&st !@D G0@ SC7A >=0HEn 6anc, G&tierre., > is not a r&le or re%&lation that needed the appro$al o) the President and p&-lication in the /))icial Ga.ette to -e e))ecti$e, -&t a mereadministrati$e interpretation o) the stat&te, a mere statement o) %eneral policy or opinion as to ho' the la' sho&ld -e constr&ed. ;ot satis)ied 'ith this r&lin%, petitioner comes to the S&preme Co&rt on appeal.Iss(e" 9hether Circ&lar >> is a r&le or re%&lation.1el+" There is a distinction -et'een an administrati$e r&le or re%&lation and an administrati$e interpretation o) a la' 'hose en)orcement is entr&sted to an administrati$e -ody. 9hen an administrati$e a%ency prom&l%ates r&les and re%&lations, it *ma(es, a ne' la' 'ith the )orce and e))ect o) a $alid la', 'hile 'hen it renders an opinion or %i$es a statement o) policy, it merely interprets a pre-existin% la' 7&les and re%&lations 'hen prom&l%ated in p&rs&ance o) the proced&re or a&thority con)erred &pon the administrati$e a%ency -y la', parta(e o) the nat&re o) a stat&te, and compliance there'ith may -e en)orced -y a penal sanction pro$ided in the la'. This is so -eca&se stat&tes are &s&ally co&ched in %eneral terms, a)ter expressin% the policy, p&rposes, o-1ecti$es, remedies and sanctions intended -y the le%islat&re. The details and the manner o) carryin% o&t the la' are o)ten times le)t to the administrati$e a%ency entr&sted 'ith its en)orcement. In this sense, it has -een said that r&les and re%&lations are the prod&ct o) a dele%ated po'er to create ne' or additional le%al pro$isions that ha$e the e))ect o) la'. A r&le is -indin% on the co&rts so lon% as the proced&re )ixed )or its prom&l%ation is )ollo'ed and its scope is 'ithin the stat&tory a&thority %ranted -y the le%islat&re, e$en i) the co&rts are not in a%reement 'ith the policy stated therein or its innate 'isdom /n the other hand, administrati$e interpretation o) the la' is at -est merely ad$isory, )or it is the co&rts that )inally determine 'hat the la' means.9hile it is tr&e that terms or 'ords are to -e interpreted in accordance 'ith their 'ell-accepted meanin% in la', ne$ertheless, 'hen s&ch term or 'ord is speci)ically de)ined in a partic&lar la', s&ch interpretation m&st -e adopted in en)orcin% that partic&lar la', )or it can not -e %ainsaid that a partic&lar phrase or term may ha$e one meanin% )or one p&rpose and another meanin% )or some otherp&rpose. 7A " speci)ically de)ined 'hat *compensation, sho&ld mean *For the p&rposes o) this Act,. 7A=!> amended s&ch de)inition -y deletin% some exceptions a&thori.ed in the ori%inal Act. 6y $irt&e o) this express s&-stantial chan%e in the phraseolo%y o) the la', 'hate$er prior exec&ti$e or 1&dicial constr&ction may ha$e -een %i$en to the phrase in 5&estion sho&ld %i$e 'ay to the clear mandate o) the ne' la'.The S&preme Co&rt a))irmed the appealed resol&tion, 'ith costs a%ainst appellant.