Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 480 views

    Philippine International Trade Corp V COA G R No 183517 June 22 2010

    Uploaded by

    Carlo Jose Bactol
    Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 cannot be construed as an additional alternative to existing general retirement laws or an exception to the prohibition against separate retirement plans. The order was issued to reorganize the Philippine International Trading Corporation and incentivize employees to retire during the reorganization. It was meant as an incentive for employees retiring due to reorganization, not as a new retirement law. Repeals of laws by implication are disfavored and laws are presumed to be passed with full knowledge of existing laws.

    Copyright:

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

    Philippine International Trade Corp V COA G R No 183517 June 22 2010

    Uploaded by

    Carlo Jose Bactol
    480 views1 page
    Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 cannot be construed as an additional alternative to existing general retirement laws or an exception to the prohibition against separate retirement plans. The order was issued to reorganize the Philippine International Trading Corporation and incentivize employees to retire during the reorganization. It was meant as an incentive for employees retiring due to reorganization, not as a new retirement law. Repeals of laws by implication are disfavored and laws are presumed to be passed with full knowledge of existing laws.

    Original Title

    282613227-Philippine-International-Trade-Corp-v-COA-G-R-No-183517-June-22-2010.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 cannot be construed as an additional alternative to existing general retirement laws or an exception to the prohibition against separate retirement plans. The order was issued to reorganize the Philippine International Trading Corporation and incentivize employees to retire during the reorganization. It was meant as an incentive for employees retiring due to reorganization, not as a new retirement law. Repeals of laws by implication are disfavored and laws are presumed to be passed with full knowledge of existing laws.

    Copyright:

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

    Philippine International Trade Corp V COA G R No 183517 June 22 2010

    Uploaded by

    Carlo Jose Bactol
    Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 cannot be construed as an additional alternative to existing general retirement laws or an exception to the prohibition against separate retirement plans. The order was issued to reorganize the Philippine International Trading Corporation and incentivize employees to retire during the reorganization. It was meant as an incentive for employees retiring due to reorganization, not as a new retirement law. Repeals of laws by implication are disfavored and laws are presumed to be passed with full knowledge of existing laws.

    Copyright:

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

    PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION v.

    clearly meant as an incentive for employees who retire, resign or are separated
    COMMISSION ON AUDIT from service during or as a consequence of the reorganization.
    G.R. No. 183517, June 22, 2010
    Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 cannot be construed as an additional
    Perez, J.: alternative to existing general retirement laws and/or an exception to the
    Doctrine: prohibition against separate or supplementary insurance retirement or pension
    Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 cannot be construed as an additional plans as aforesaid. Aside from the fact that a meaning that does not appear nor is
    alternative to existing general retirement laws and/or an exception to the intended or reflected in the very language of the statute cannot be placed therein
    prohibition against separate or supplementary insurance retirement or pension by construction, petitioner would likewise do well to remember that repeal of
    plans as aforesaid. 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
    Facts: With the issuance of PD 1071, otherwise known as the Revised Charter of laws existing on the subject, the congruent application of which the courts must
    the Philippine International Trading Corporation, then President Marcos issued generally presume.
    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 Executive Order No. 756 is an additional alternative to existing


    general retirement laws and/or an exception to the prohibition against separate or
    supplementary insurance retirement or pension plans?

    Held: No.

    Ratio: STATCON RULE: every part of the statute must be interpreted with
    reference to the context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be considered
    together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the
    whole enactment. The clauses and phrases must not be taken as detached and
    isolated expressions. All the words in the statute must be taken into
    consideration in order to ascertain its meaning.

    The intent of EO 756 was to reorganize the petitioner’s corporate set up in


    accordance with its expanded role in the development of Philippine trade. It was

    You might also like