Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    Mecano V COA

    Uploaded by

    sophia

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Mecano V COA

    Uploaded by

    sophia
    13 views1 page

    Original Title

    4. Mecano v COA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    13 views1 page

    Mecano V COA

    Uploaded by

    sophia

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Mecano vs COA

    Campos Jr, J:

    FACTS:

    Petitioner is a Director of NBI and was hospitalized and incurred medical and hospitalization expenses.
    He requested reimbursement for his expenses on the ground that he is entitled to the benefits under
    Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 (RAC).

    Commission on Audit (COA) Chairman, in his 7th Indorsement, denied petitioner’s claim on the ground
    that Section 699 of the RAC had been repealed by the Administrative Code of 1987 solely for the reason
    that the same section was not restated nor re-enacted in the latter.

    Petitioner also anchored his claim on Department of Justice Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 by Secretary Drilon
    stating that “the issuance of the Administrative Code did not operate to repeal or abrogate in its entirety
    the Revised Administrative Code. The COA strongly maintains that the enactment of the Administrative
    Code of 1987 operated to revoke or supplant in its entirety the RAC.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the Administrative Code of 1987 repealed or abrogated Section 699 of the RAC

    RULING: NO

    The question of whether a particular law has been repealed or not by a subsequent law is a matter of
    legislative intent. The lawmakers may expressly repeal a law by incorporating therein a repealing
    provision which expressly and specifically cites the particular law or laws, and portions thereof, that are
    intended to be repealed. A declaration in a statute, usually in its repealing clause, that a particular and
    specific law, identified by its number or title, is repealed is an express repeal; all others are implied
    repeals.

    In the case of the two Administrative Codes in question, the ascertainment of whether or not it was the
    intent of the legislature to supplant the old Code with the new Code partly depends on the scrutiny of
    the repealing clause of the new Code.

    CONCLUSION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to GRANT the petition; respondent
    is hereby ordered to give due course to petitioner’s claim for benefits.

    You might also like