Scribd
Upload
488 views1 page

Perez, J.:: Philippine International Trading Corporation V. Commission On Audit

Executive Order No. 756 authorized the reorganization of the Philippine International Trading Corporation (PITC) but did not create an additional retirement program. Section 6 of the order cannot be interpreted as an alternative to existing general retirement laws or an exception to the prohibition on separate retirement plans. The Supreme Court held that Executive Order No. 756 did not establish a supplemental retirement benefit, as implied repeals of laws are disfavored and every statute must be interpreted harmoniously with other laws.

Uploaded by

Lara Michelle Sanday Binudin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
488 views1 page

Perez, J.:: Philippine International Trading Corporation V. Commission On Audit

Executive Order No. 756 authorized the reorganization of the Philippine International Trading Corporation (PITC) but did not create an additional retirement program. Section 6 of the order cannot be interpreted as an alternative to existing general retirement laws or an exception to the prohibition on separate retirement plans. The Supreme Court held that Executive Order No. 756 did not establish a supplemental retirement benefit, as implied repeals of laws are disfavored and every statute must be interpreted harmoniously with other laws.

Uploaded by

Lara Michelle Sanday Binudin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION v.

COMMISSION ON AUDIT
G.R. No. 183517, June 22, 2010
Perez, J.:

Doctrine:
Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 cannot be construed as an additional alternative to
existing general retirement laws and/or an exception to the prohibition against separate or
supplementary insurance retirement or pension plans as aforesaid.

Facts:
With the issuance of PD 1071, otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the Philippine
International Trading Corporation, then President Marcos issued EO 756, authorizing the
reorganization of PITC. On February 18, 1983, President Marcos issued Executive Order No.
87.

Romero, an officer of petitioner, filed a July 16, 2001 request, seeking from petitioner payment
of retirement differentials on the strength of Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756.

COA Comm. Habitan issued the assailed ruling,stating that Reserve for Retirement Gratuity and
Commutation of Leave Credits of petitioner’s employees did not include allowances outside of
the basic salary, said officer ruled that Executive Order No. 756 was a special law issued only
for the specific purpose of reorganizing petitioner corporation. Finding that Section 6 of
Executive Order No. 756 was simply an incentive to encourage employees to resign or retire at
the height of petitioner’s reorganization, said decision went on to make the following
pronouncements, to wit:"Moreover, RA No. 4968 prohibits the creation of any insurance
retirement plan by any government agency and government-owned or controlled corporation
other than the GSIS,

Issue:
Whether or not Executive Order No. 756 is an additional alternative to existing general
retirement laws.

Held:
No. Time and again, it has been held that every statute must be so interpreted and brought in
accord with other laws as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence – interpretere et concordare
legibus est optimus interpretendi (To interpret and harmonize law is the best method of
interpretation). Thus, if diverse statutes relate to the same thing, they ought to be taken into
consideration in construing any one of them, as it is an established rule of law that all acts in
pari materia (the same subject) are to be taken together, as if they were one law.

Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 cannot be construed as an additional alternative to


existing general retirement laws and/or an exception to the prohibition against separate or
supplementary insurance retirement or pension plans as aforesaid. Aside from the fact that a
meaning that does not appear nor is intended or reflected in the very language of the statute
cannot be placed therein by construction, petitioner would likewise do well to remember that
repeal of laws should be made clear and express. Repeals by implication are not favored as
laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation and full knowledge of all laws existing on the
subject, the congruent application of which the courts must generally presume.

You might also like