Which should prevail when conflicts arise between an administrative regulation and a statute?

      TOPIC:

1. Which should prevail in case of conflict between a statute and an administrative regulation?
2. What does basic salary mean?

Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. vs. De la Serna

FACTS:

Petitioner Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. was allegedly found by the Department of Labor and Employment to have committed an underpayment of the 13th month pay given to its medical representative employees. 

DOLE cited Section 5(a) of the Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of PD 851 or the 13th Month Pay Law, as promulgated by then Labor Secretary Franklin Drilon. Under Section 5(a) of the Revised Guidelines, the "commission shall be included in the computation of the 13th month pay".

Petitioner argued that the computation of the 13th month pay which is 1/12 of the basic salary should be based solely on the basic salary not including the commission and other benefits.  

ISSUE:

Whether or not the DOLE Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of the 13th Month Pay Law should prevail over P.D. 851. 

RULING: 

No, the DOLE Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of the 13th Month Pay Law do not prevail over P.D. 851.

Under the rules on statutory construction, an administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress. Hence, implementing rules cannot add to or detract from the provisions of the law it is designed to implement.

In this case, the second paragraph of Section 5(a) of the DOLE Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of the 13th Month Pay Law unduly added the concept of "basic salary" as defined in P.D. 851 when it included the commission as part of the basic salary for purposes of computation of the 13th month pay. 

Therefore, the computation for the 13th month pay as provided in the Revised Guidelines is not valid. 

  

Republic v. Sandoval

TOPICS: Doctrine of Immunity from Suit; A suit against the state is proper when the [1] republic is sued by name, [2] the suit is against an unincorporated government agency, and [3] when the suit is on its face against the government officer but the ultimate liability will belong not to the officer but to the government. 

FACTS:

The heirs of the deceased during the Mendiola Massacre on January 22, 1987 filed a case for damages against the Republic of the Philippines, together with the military officers and personnel involved in the incident. 

The petitioners argued that the State waived its immunity from suit on the basis of the report issued by the Citizens’ Mendiola Commission organized by Pres. Aquino. 

The Commission recommended the government to indemnify the heirs and the victims of the Mendiola incident. 

ISSUE:

WON the case qualifies as a suit against the state. 

RULING:

No, the case is not a suit against the state.

A suit against the state is proper when the Republic is sued by name, the suit is against an unincorporated government agency, and that the ultimate liability belongs to the government. 

In this case, the military officers and personnel exceeded their authority in the discharge of their official functions. They Committee report found that there was a lack of justification by the government forces in the use of firearms and there were unnecessary firing. Hence, the ultimate liability does not pertain to the government

Therefore, the case does not qualify as a suit against the estate. [the liability should fall on the named defendants in the lower court]

-------------- 

DISCUSSION:

The report of the Commission does not in any way mean that liability automatically attaches to the State. The findings only serve as the cause of action in the event any party decides to litigate his/her claim. The Commission, being a fact-finding body, is merely a preliminary venue. Whatever recommendation it makes cannot in any way bind the State immediately, such recommendation not having become final and executory.

USA v. Reyes

TOPIC: Doctrine of Immunity from Suit

FACTS:

Respondent Montoya is an American citizen working as the ID checker at the US Navy Exchange at the Joint United States Military Assistance Group (NEX JUSMAG) headquarters in Quezon City. Petitioner Bradford, also an American citizen, was the activity exchange manager at the said JUSMAG Headquarters. 

The Respondent filed a complaint concerning the alleged discriminatory acts committed by the petitioner in excess of her authority as the store manager of the NEX JUSMAG. 

The Petitioner, together with the US Government, filed a Motion to Dismiss as the case was a suit against the USA, a foreign sovereign immune from suit without its consent. The respondent argued that the complained act was conducted at the parking lot, outside the JUSMAG Store and that Petitioner does not possess diplomatic immunity. 

ISSUE:

WON the Petitioner possesses diplomatic immunity.

RULING:

I.

No.   

Under the doctrine of immunity from suit, a state may not be sued without its consent. The immunity applies against officials of states for acts performed by them in the discharge of their duties. However, unauthorized acts of government officials or where public officials are being sued in their private and personal capacity are not suit against the state. 

In this case, Petitioner Bradford was sued in her private or personal capacity for acts allegedly done beyond the scope and even beyond her place of official functions. Petitioner’s illegal search on the Respondent’s person and belongings was conducted outside the JUSMAG premises. 

Therefore, Petitioner, who was sued for the unauthorized act outside of the scope of her authority and was sued in her personal capacity cannot enjoy of the immunity from suit. 

-------------------------------- 

DISCUSSION:

General Rule: A state may not be sued without its consent. It is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. 

Exception: [1] Unauthorized acts of government officials or officers are not acts of the State and [2] where public official is being sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. Thus, they are not a suit against the state. 

The doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice.

Basis: Article XVI, Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution and the generally accepted principles of international law. 

Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from criminal, civil, and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state except in the case of an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving state outside his official functions.