stat con cases

25
Caltext vs Palomar 18 SCRA 247 G.R. No. L-19650 Caltex Philippines, Inc., petitioner-appellee Vs. Enrico Palomar, in his capacity as The Postmaster General, respondent-appellant FACTS: In the year 1960, Caltex Philippines conceived and laid the ground work for a promotional scheme calculated to drum up patronage for its oil products. The contest was entitled “Caltex Hooded Pump Contest”, which calls for participants to estimate the actual number of liters as hooded gas pump at each Caltex station will dispense during a specific period. Foreseeing the extensive use of the mails not only as amongst the media for publicizing the contest but also for the transmission of communications, representations were made by Caltex with the postal authorities for the contest to be cleared in advance for mailing. This was formalized in a letter sent by Caltex to the Post master General, dated October 31, 1960, in which Caltex, thru its counsel, enclosed a copy of the contest rules and endeavored to justify its position that the contest does not violate the “The Anti-Lottery Provisions of the Postal Law”. Unfortunately, the Palomar, the acting Postmaster General denied Caltex’s request stating that the contest scheme falls within the purview of the Anti-lottery Provision and ultimately, declined Clatex’s request for clearance. Caltex sought reconsideration, stressing that there being no consideration involved in part of the contestant, the contest was not commendable as a lottery. However, the Postmaster General maintained his view that the contest involves consideration, or even it does not involve any consideration it still falls as “Gift Enterprise”, which was equally banned by the Postal Law. ISSUE: Whether the petition states a sufficient cause of action for declaratory relief? Whether or not the scheme proposed by Caltex the appellee is within the coverage of the prohibitive provisions of the Postal Law? HELD: I. By express mandate of Section 1 of Rule 66 of the old Rules of Court which deals with the applicability to invoke declaratory relief which states: “Declaratory relief is available to person whose rights are affected by a statute, to determine any question of construction or validity arising under the statute and for a declaration of rights thereunder. In amplification, conformably established jurisprudence on the matter, laid down certain conditions:

Upload: max

Post on 19-Aug-2015

5 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Statutory Construction cases

TRANSCRIPT

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.