6 - Yazaki Torres Manufacturing Inc. Vs CA

Yazaki Torres Manufacturing Inc.
vs CA
Facts:
The Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) is the government agency
tasked with the administration of the PAG-IBIG Fund created under Presidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 1530. The Fund has been intended for housing purposes to be
sourced from voluntary contributions from its members.
On June 17, 1994, it was amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7742. Under
the new law, the coverage of the Fund extends to all members of the Social
Security System and Government Service Insurance System, as well as their
employers. However, membership is voluntary for employees earning less than
P4,000.00 a month.
Yazaki Torres Manufacturing, Inc., a corporation organized under Philippine

laws, applied for and was granted by the HDMF a waiver from the Fund coverage
for the period from January 1 to December 31, 1995. The HDMF found that
petitioner's retirement plan for its employees is superior to that offered by the Fund.
On September 1, 1995, the HDMF Board of Trustees amended Rule VII of the
Rules and Regulations implementing R.A. No. 7742.
After its waiver from the Fund coverage lapsed, petitioner applied for a
renewal. The ground relied upon was once again its “superior retirement plan” to
that of the Fund. Subsequently, the HDMF Chief Executive officer disapproved
petitioner’s application on the ground that its retirement plan is not superior to
that provided by the Fund.
The petitioner interposed an appeal to HDMF Board of Trustees, but the

Board denied the appeal. Thereupon, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a
petition for review. CA denied the petition. Petitioner filed its Motion for
Reconsideration, but it was denied once again by the CA. Hence, the instant
petition for certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in
upholding the HDMF's Resolution denying petitioner's application for renewal of
waiver.
Ruling:
NO. It is a doctrine of long-standing that courts will not interfere in matters
which are addressed to the sound discretion of the government agency
entrusted with regulation of activities coming under the special and technical
training and knowledge of such agency. For the exercise of administrative
discretion is a policy decision and a matter that best be discharged by the
government agency concerned and not by the courts.
In this case, there is no showing that the HDMF arbitrarily, whimsically or

capriciously denied petitioner's application for renewal of its waiver. It conducted
the necessary investigation, comparison, evaluation, and deliberation of
petitioner's retirement plan vis-a-vis the Fund. This Court thus holds that the Court
of Appeals committed no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction when it affirmed the denial of petitioner's application for renewal of
waiver by the HDMF.
The grant of waiver or exemption from the coverage of the Fund is but a
mere privilege granted by the State. There is no provision whatsoever in R.A. No.
7742 or its Implementing Rules and Regulations that the HDMF shall automatically
renew a waiver from the Fund coverage upon an application for renewal. The
task of determining whether such application should be granted is best
discharged by the HDMF, not by the courts. Hence, the petition is DISMISSED.
Constitutional Principle or Issue : Delegation of Powers
The legislative power has been described generally as the power to make,
alter, and repeal laws. The authority to amend, change, or modify a law is thus
part of such legislative power. However, the legislature cannot foresee every
contingency involved in a particular problem that it seeks to address. Thus, it has
become customary for it to delegate to instrumentalities of the executive
department, known as administrative agencies, the power to make rules and
regulations. The details and manner of carrying out the law are left to the
administrative agency charged with its implementation. In this sense, rules and
regulations promulgated by an administrative agency are the product of a
delegated power to create new or additional legal provisions that have the
effect of law. Hence, in general, rules and regulations issued by an administrative
agency, pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by law, have the force and
effect, or partake of the nature, of a statute.
The law delegated to the HDMF the rule-making power since this is
necessary for the proper exercise of its authority to administer the Fund. Following
the doctrine of necessary implication, this grant of express power to formulate
implementing rules and regulations must necessarily include the power to amend,
revise, alter, or repeal the same.

6 - Yazaki Torres Manufacturing Inc. Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6 - Yazaki Torres Manufacturing Inc. Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

6 - Yazaki Torres Manufacturing Inc. Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yazaki Torres Manufacturing Inc.

Yazaki Torres Manufacturing, Inc., a corporation organized under Philippine

The petitioner interposed an appeal to HDMF Board of Trustees, but the

In this case, there is no showing that the HDMF arbitrarily, whimsically or

Constitutional Principle or Issue : Delegation of Powers

You might also like