AMENDMENTS

Quimpo v. Mendoza

Where a statute which requires that the annual realty tax on lands or
buildings be paid on or before the specified date, subject to penalty of a percentage
of the whole amount of tax in case of delayed payment, is amended by authorizing
payment of the tax in four equal installments to become due on or before specified
dates.

The penalty provision of the earlier statute is modified by implication

that the penalty for late payment of an installment under the later law will be
collected and computed only on the installment that became due and unpaid, and
not on the whole amount of annual tax as provided in the old statute.

Legislative intent to change the basis is clear when the later law
allowed payment in four installments.

People v. Macatanda
A statute punishing an act which is also a crime under the RPC provides a penalty
as prescribed in the said Code, such statute is not a special law but an amendment
by implication.

Estrada v. Caseda
Where a statute which provides that it shall be in force for a period of four years
after its approval, the four years is to be counted from the date the original statute
was approved and not from the date the amendatory act was amended.

Victorias Milling Co. v. SSS

A statutory definition of term containing a general rule and an exception thereto is
amended by eliminating the exception, the legislative intent is clear that the term
should now include the exception within the scope of the general rule.

Parras v. Land Registration Commissions


Section of a statute requiring the exact payment of publication fees in
land registration proceedings, except in cases where the value of the land does not
exceed P50,000 is amended by deleting the excepting clause, it means that the
statute as amended now requires payment of the publication fees regardless of the
value of the land involved.

Suppression of the excepting clause amount to the withdrawal of the

exemption allowed under the original act.

Imperial v. Collector of Internal Revenue

A statute amending a tax law is silent as to whether it operates retroactively, the
amendment will not be giving retroactive effect so as to subject to tax past
transactions not subject to tax under the original act.

Diu v. Court of Appeals

Statutes relating to procedure in courts are applicable to actions pending and
undetermined at the time of their passage.

Rillaroza v. Arciaga
Absence of a clear legislative intent to the contrary, a subsequent statute amending
a prior act with the effect of divesting the court of jurisdiction may not be construed
to operate but to oust jurisdiction that has already attached under the prior law.

Iburaan v. Labes
Where a court originally obtains and exercises jurisdiction pursuant to an existing
law, such jurisdiction will not be overturned and impaired by the subsequent
amendment of the law, unless express prohibitory words or words of similar import
are used.

Erectors, Inc v. NLRC

PD 1691 and 1391 vested Labor Arbiters with original and exclusive jurisdiction over
all cases involving employer-employee relations, including money claims arising out
of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas employment

Facts: An overseas worker filed a money claim against his recruiter, and while the
case is pending, EO 797 was enacted, which vested POEA with original and
exclusive jurisdiction over all cases, including money claims, arising out of law or
contract involving Filipino workers for overseas employment.
ISSUE: WoN the decision of the labor arbiter in favor of the overseas worker was
invalid
RULING: authority to decide the cease because EO 797b did not divest the labor
arbiter his authority to hear and decide the case filed by the overseas worker prior
to its effectivity.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the law in force at the time of
the commencement of the action; laws should only be applied prospectively unless
the legislative intent to give them retroactive effect is expressly declared or is
necessarily implied from the language used.

Government v. Agoncillo
Where the amendatory act is declared unconstitutional, it is as if the amendment
did not exist, and the original statute before the attempted amend remains
unaffected and in force.

REVISION AND CODIFICATION

Lichauco & Co. v. Apostol

A irreconcilable conflict between parts of a revised statute or a code, that which is
best in accord with the general plan or, in the absence of circumstances upon which
to base a choice, that which is later in physical position, being the latest expression
of legislative will, will prevail.

Mecano v. Commission on Audit

FACTS: Claim for reimbursement by a government official of medical and
hospitalization expenses pursuant to Section 699 of the Revised Administration
Code of 1917, which authorizes the head of office to case a reimbursement of
payment of medical and hospital expenses of a government official in case of

sickness or injury caused by or connected directly with the performance of his

official duty.
CoA denied the claim on the ground that AC of 1987 which revised the old AC,
repealed Sec. 699 because it was omitted the revised code.
RULING: The legislature did not intend, in enacting the new Code, to repeal Sec. 699
of the old code.
All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulation, or portions thereof, inconsistent
with this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
New code did not expressly repeal the old as the new Code fails to identify or
designate the act to be repealed.

Two categories of repeal by implication

Provisions in the two acts on the same subject matter that are in
irreconcilable conflict.

the earlier

Later act to the extent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of

If the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly
intended as a statute, it will operate to repeal the earlier law.
There is no irreconcilable conflict between the two codes on the matter of sickness
benefits because the provision has not been restated in the New Code.
The whereas clause is the intent to cover only those aspects of government that
pertain to administration, organization and procedure, and understandably because
of the many changes that transpired in the government structure since the
enactment of the old code.

REPEAL

Agujetas v. Court of Appeals

FACTS: Sec 28 of RA 7166 pertaining to canvassing by boards of canvassers is silent
as to how the board of canvassers shall prepare the certificate of canvass and as to
what will be its basis, w/c details are provided in the second paragraph of Sec231 of
the Omnibus Election Code, an earlier statute, respective boards of canvassers
shall prepare a certificate of canvass duly signed and affixed with the imprint of the
thumb of the right hand of each member, supported by a statement of the votes
and received by each candidate in each polling place and on the basis thereof shall

proclaim as elected the candidates who obtained the highest number of votes coast
in the provinces, city, municipality or barangay, and failure to comply with this
requirement shall constitute an election offense
RULING: Did not impliedly repeal the second paragraph of Sec 231 of OEC and
render the failure to comply with the requirement no longer an election offense.

Smith, Bell & Co. v. Estate of Maronilla

A prior law is impliedly repealed by a later act where the reason for the earlier act is
beyond peradventure removed.

Mecano v. Commission on Audit

ISSUE: WoN Sec. 699 of the Revised Administrative Code has been repealed by the
1987 Administrative Code.
1987 Administration Code provides that: All laws, decrees, orders, rules and
regulations, or portions thereof, inconsistent with this code are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly
RULING: Court ruled that the new Code did not repeal Sec 699:

Implied repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency takes place when two

statutes cover the same subject matter, they are so clearly inconsistent and
incompatible with each other that they cannot be reconciled or harmonized, and
both cannot be given effect, that one law cannot be enforced without nullifying the
other.

The new Code does not cover not attempt to the cover the entire
subject matter of the old Code.

There are several matters treated in the old Code that are not found in
the new Code. (provisions on notary public; leave law, public bonding law, military
reservations, claims for sickness benefits under section 699 and others)

CoA failed to demonstrate that the provisions of the two Codes on the
matter of the subject claim are in an irreconcilable conflict.

There can no conflict because the provision on sickness benefits of

the nature being claimed by petitioner has not been restated in old Code.


The fact that a later enactment may relate to the same subject matter
as that of an earlier statute is not of itself sufficient to cause an implied repeal of
the prior act new statute may merely be cumulative or a continuation of the old
one.

Second Category: possible only if the revised statute or code was

intended to cover the whole subject to be a complete and perfect system in itself.

Rule: a subsequent is deemed to repeal a prior law if the former revises

the whole subject matter of the former statute.

When both intent and scope clearly evince the idea of a repeal, then
all parts and provisions of the prior act that are omitted from the revised act are
deemed repealed.

Before there can be an implied repeal under this category, it must be

the clear intent of the legislature that later act be the substitute of the prior act.

Opinion 73 s.1991 of the Secretary of Justice: what appears clear is

the intent to cover only those aspects of government that pertain to administration,
organization and procedure, understandably because of the many changes that
transpired in the government structure since the enactment of RAC.

Repeals of statutes by implication are not favored. Presumption is

against the inconsistency and repugnancy for the legislature is presumed to know
the existing laws on the subject and not to have enacted inconsistent or conflicting
statutes.

Ty v. Trampe
ISSUE: whether PD 921 on real estate taxes has been repealed impliedly by RA
7160, otherwise know as the Local Government Code of 1991 on the same subject.
RULING: that there has been no implied repeal. It is clear that the two law are not
coextensive and mutually inclusive in their scope and purpose. RA 7160 covers
almost all governmental functions delegated to local government units all over the
country. PD 921 embraces only Metropolitan Manila Area and is limited to the
administration of financial services therein. Sec.9 PD921 requires that the schedule
of values of real properties in the Metropolitan Manila Area shall be prepared jointly
by the city assessors states that the schedules shall be prepared by the provincial,
city and municipal assessors of the municipalities within Metropolitan Manila Area
for the different classes of real property situated in their respective local
government units for enactment by ordinance of the sanggunian concerned.

Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole
Sec.19 RA 6670, the Ombudsman Act grants disciplinary authority to the
Ombudsman to discipline elective and appointive officials, except those
impeachable officers, has been repealed, RA 7160, the Local Government Code,
insofar as local elective officials in the various officials therein named.
RULING: both laws should be given effect because there is nothing in the Local
Government Code to indicate that it has repealed, whether expressly or impliedly.
The two statutes on the specific matter in question are not so inconsistent, let alone
irreconcilable, as to compel us to uphold one and strike down the other.
Two laws must be incompatible, and a clear finding thereof must surface, before the
inference of implied repeal may be drawn.
Interpretare et concordare leges legibus, est optimus interpretandi modus, i. e
every statute must be so construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form
uniform system of jurisprudence. The legislature should be presumed to have
known the existing laws on the subject and not to have enacted conflicting statutes.

Initia, Jr v. CoA

Implied repeal will not be decreed unless there is an irreconcilable

inconsistency between two provisions or laws is RA 7354 in relation to PD 1597.

RA 7354 in part of the Postmaster General, subject to the approval

of the Board of Directors of the Philippines Postal Corporation, shall have the power
to determine the staffing pattern and the number of personnel, define their duties
and responsibilities, and fix their salaries and emoluments in accordance with the
approved compensation structure of the Corporation.

Sec.6 PD 1597 exemptions notwithstanding, agencies shall report

to the President, through the Budget Commission, on their position classification
and compensation plans, policies, rates and other related details following such
specifications as may be prescribed by the President.
ISSUE: WoN Sec6 of PD1597, the two laws being reconcilable.
RULING: While the Philippine Postal Corporation is allowed to fix its own personnel
compensation structure through its board of directors, the latter is required to follow
certain standards in formulating said compensation system, and the role of DBM is
merely to ensure that the action taken by the board of directors complies the
requirements of the law.

Cebu Institute of Technology v. Ople

Sec. 3(a) PD 451 and Sec. 42 of BP 232 illustrates repeal by implication.
Sec 3(a) provides: no increase in tuition or other school fees or charges shall be
approved unless 60% of the proceed is allocated to increase in salaries or wages of
the member of the faculty.
BP 232: each private school shall determine its rate of tuition and other school fees
or charges. The rates or charges adopted by schools pursuant to this provision shall
be collectible, and their application or use authorized, subject to rules and
regulations promulgated by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports.
ISSUE: WoN Sec. 42 of BP 232 impliedly repealed Sec. 3(a) of PD 451
HELD: There was implied repeal because there are irreconcilable differences
between the two laws.

People v. Benuya

Where a statute is revised or a series of legislative acts on the same

subject are revised or consolidated into one, covering the entire field of subject
matter, all parts and provisions of the former act or acts

that are omitted from the revised act are deemed repealed.

Joaquin v. Navarro

Where a new statute is intended to furnish the exclusive rule on a

certain subject, it repeals by implication the old law on the same subject

Where a new statute covers the whole subject matter of an old law
and adds new provisions and makes changes, and where such law, whether it be in
the form of an amendment or otherwise, is evidently intended to be a revision of
the old act, it repeals the old act by implication.

People v. Almuete

Revision of the Agricultural Tenancy Act by the Agricultural Land

Reform Code.


Sec 39 of ATC (RA 1199) it shall be unlawful for either the tenant or
landlord without mutual consent, to reap or thresh a portion of the crop at any time
previous to the date set, for its threshing.

An action for violation of this penal provision is pending in court, the

Agricultural Land Reform Code superseded the Agricultural Tenancy Act, abolished
share tenancy, was not reproduced in the Agricultural Land Reform Code.

The effect of such non-reenactment is a repeal of Section 39.

It is a rule of legal hermeneutics that an act which purports to set out

in full all that it intends to contain, operates as a repeal of anything omitted which
was contained in the old act and not included in the act as revised.

A substitute statute, and evidently intended as the substitute for it,

operates to repeal the former statute.

Tung Chin Hui v. Rodriguez

ISSUE: whether Sec.18 Rule 41 of the pre-1007 Rules of Court, which provided the
appeal in habeas corpus cases to be taken within 48 hours from notice of judgment,
has been replaced by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in Sec. 3
Rule 41 thereof, that appeal from judgment or final order shall be taken within 15
days from receipt thereof, in view of the fact that the Sec. 18 was repealed, in
accordance with the well-settled rule of statutory construction that provisions of an
old law that were not reproduced in the revision thereof covering the same subject
are deemed repealed and discarded
HELD: SC in this case to abrogate those provisions of the old laws that are not
reproduced in the revised statute or Code.

Parras v. Land Registration Commission

Where a law amends a specific section of a prior act by providing that

the same is amended so as to read as follows, which then quotes the amended
provision, what is not included in the reenactment is deemed repealed.

The new statute is a substitute for the original section and all matters
in the section that are omitted in the amendment are considered repealed.

Valdez v. Tuason


without it.

such a clause repeals nothing that would not be equally repealed

Either with or without it, the real question to be determined is whether

the new statute is in fundamental and irreconcilable conflict with the prior statute
on the subject.

A later general law will ordinarily not repeal a prior special law on the
same subject, as the latter is generally regarded as an exception to the former.

With such clause contained in the subsequent general law, the prior
special law will be deemed repealed, as the clause is a clear legislative intent to
bring about that result.

US v. Palacio

Repeals by implication are not favored, and will not be decreed unless
it is manifest that the legislature so intended.

As laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation and with full

knowledge of all existing ones on the subject

It is but reasonable to conclude that in passing a statute it was not

intended to interfere with or abrogate any former law relating to some matter

Unless the repugnancy between the two is not only irreconcilable, but
also clear and convincing, and flowing necessarily form the language used, the later
act fully embraces the subject matter of the earlier, or unless the reason for the
earlier act is beyond peradventure removed.

Every effort must be used to make all acts stand and if, by any
reasonable construction, they can be reconciled, the later act will not operate as a
repeal of the earlier.

NAPOCOR v. Angas
Illustrates the application of the principle that repeal or amendment by implication
is not favored.
ISSUE: WoN Central Bank Circular 416 has impliedly repealed or amended Art 2209
of the Civil Code
RULING: in answering the issue in the negative, the court ruled that repeals or even
amendments by implication are not favored if two laws can be fairly reconciled. The
statutes contemplate different situations and apply to different transactions

involving loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits, as well as judgments

relating to such load or forbearance of money, goods, or credits, the Central Bank
Circular applies.
In cases requiring the payment of indemnities as damages, in connection with any
delay in the performance of an obligation other than those involving loan or
forbearance of money, goods or credits, Art 2209 of the CC applies
Courts are slow to hold that one statute has repealed another by implication and
they will not make such adjudication if they can refrain from doing so, or if they can
arrive at another result by any construction which is just and reasonable. Courts
will not enlarge the meaning of one act in order to decide that is repeals another by
implication, nor will they adopt an interpretation leading to an adjudication of repeal
by implication unless it is inevitable and a clear and explicit reason thereof can be
adduced.

Manila Trading & Supply Co. v. Phil. Labor Union

An act passed April 16th and in force April 21st was held to prevail
over an act passed April 9th and in effect July 4th of the same year.

And an act going into effect immediately has been held to prevail over
an act passed before but going into effect later.

Whenever two statutes of different dates and of contrary tenor are of

equal theoretical application to a particular case, the statute of later date must
prevail, being a later expression of legislative will.

Philippine National Bank v. Cruz

As between the order of preference of credit set forth in Articles 2241

to 2245 of the CC and that of Article 110 of the Labor Code, giving first preference
to unpaid wages and other monetary claims of labor, the former must yield to the
latter, being the law of the later enactment.

will.

The later law repeals an earlier one because it is the later legislative

change it.

Presumption: the lawmakers knew the older law and intended to

In enacting the older law, the legislators could not have known the
newer one and could not have intended to change what they did not know.


around.

CC: laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, not the other way

David v. COMELEC

Sec. 1 of RA 6679 provides that the term of barangay officials who

were to be elected on the second Monday of May 1994 is 5 years

The later act RA 7160 Sec 43 (c) states that the term of office of
barangay officials who were to be elected also on the 2nd Monday of May 1994 is 3
years.

There being a clear inconsistency between the two laws, the later law
fixing the term barangay officials at 3 years shall prevail.

General law does not repeal special law, generally

A general law on a subject does not operate to repeal a prior special law on the
same subject, unless it clearly appears that the legislature has intended by the later
general act to modify or repeal the earlier special law.

Sto. Domingo v. De los Angeles

The court invariably ruled that the special law is not impliedly repealed and
constitutes an exception to the general law whenever the legislature failed to
indicate in unmistakable terms its intent to repeal or modify the prior special act.

NAPOCOR v. Arca
ISSUE: WoN Sec. 2 of Com. Act 120 creating the NAPOCOR, a government-owned
corporation, and empowering it to sell electric power and to fix the rates and
provide for the collection of the charges for any services rendered: Provided, the
rates of charges shall not be subject to revision by the Public Service Act has been
repealed by RA 2677 amending the Public Service Act and granting the Public
Service Commission the jurisdiction to fix the rate of charges of public utilities
owned or operated by the government or government-owned corporations.
HELD: a special law, like Com. Act 120, providing for a particular case or class of
cases, is not repealed by a subsequent statute, general in its terms, like RA 2677,
although the general statute are broad enough to include the cases embraced in the
special law, in the absence of a clear intent to repeal.


There appears no such legislative intent to repeal or abrogate the
provisions of the earlier law.

The explanatory note to House Bill 4030 the later became RA 2677, it
was explicit that the jurisdiction conferred upon the Republic Service Commission
over the public utilities operated by government-owned or controlled corporations is
to be confined to the fixing of rates of such public services

The harnessing and then distribution and sale of electric power to the
consuming public, the contingency intended to be met by the legal provision under
consideration would not exist.

The authority of the Public Service Commission under RA 2677 over

the fixing of rate of charges of public utilities owned or operated by GOCCs can
only be exercised where the charter of the government corporation concerned does
not contain any provision to the contrary.

Philippine Railway Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue

FACTS: PRC was granted a legislative franchise to operate a railway line pursuant to
Act No. 1497 Sec. 13 which read: In considera