Scribd
Upload
392 views2 pages

Rmbsa VS HDMF

The petitioner law firm challenged amendments to the rules implementing the Pag-IBIG Fund law that required employers to have both a retirement plan and housing plan superior to the Fund's benefits in order to qualify for an exemption from Fund coverage. The petitioner argued this was invalid as it repealed the exemption granted under the existing law. The Court agreed and ruled the amendments null and void, finding the existing law intended that an employer with a superior provident/retirement plan or housing plan could obtain exemption based on the use of "and/or", not just both plans as required by the amended rules. The Court held the respondent Board exceeded its rule-making authority by removing the disjunctive "or".

Uploaded by

Miggy Alamis
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
392 views2 pages

Rmbsa VS HDMF

The petitioner law firm challenged amendments to the rules implementing the Pag-IBIG Fund law that required employers to have both a retirement plan and housing plan superior to the Fund's benefits in order to qualify for an exemption from Fund coverage. The petitioner argued this was invalid as it repealed the exemption granted under the existing law. The Court agreed and ruled the amendments null and void, finding the existing law intended that an employer with a superior provident/retirement plan or housing plan could obtain exemption based on the use of "and/or", not just both plans as required by the amended rules. The Court held the respondent Board exceeded its rule-making authority by removing the disjunctive "or".

Uploaded by

Miggy Alamis
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ROMULO, MABANTA, BUENAVENTURA, SAYOC & DE LOS ANGELES, PETITIONER,

VS.

HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND, RESPONDENT.

Law:

PD No. 72 Sec 19:

SEC. 19. Existing Provident/Housing Plan - An employer and/or employee~group who, at the time this
Decree becomes effective have their own provident and/or employee~housing plans, may register with
the Fund, for any of the following purposes:

(a)....For annual certification of waiver or suspension from coverage or participation in the Fund, which
shall be granted on the basis of verification that the waiver or suspension does not contravene any
effective collective bargaining agreement and that the features of the plan or plans are superior to the
Fund or continue to be so; or

(b)....For integration with the Fund, either fully or partially. The establishment of a separate provident
and/or housing plan after the effectivity of this Decree shall not be a ground for waiver of coverage in
the Fund; nor shall such coverage bar any employer and/or employee~group from establishing separate
provident and/or housing plans.

Facts:

Petitioner Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc and De Los Angeles (hereafter PETITIONER), a law
firm, was exempted for the period 1 January to 31 December 1995, from the Pag-IBIG Fund coverage by
respondent HDMF because of a superior retirement plan.

The HDMF Board of Trustees, pursuant to Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7742, issued Board Resolution
No. 1011, Series of 1995, amending and modifying the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No.
7742. As amended, Section 1 of Rule VII provides that for a company to be entitled to a waiver or
suspension of Fund coverage, 3 it must have a plan providing for both provident/retirement and housing
benefits superior to those provided under the Pag-IBIG Fund.

PETITIONER submitted to the HDMF a letter explaining that the Amendments to the Rules are invalid. In
that the amendments are void insofar as they abolished the exemption granted by Section 19 of P.D.
1752, as amended. The repeal of such exemption involves the exercise of legislative power, which cannot
be delegated to HMDF.

HDMF disapproved PETITIONER’s application on the ground that the requirement that there should be
both a provident retirement fund and a housing plan is clear in the use of the phrase “and/or,” and that
the Rules Implementing R.A. No. 7742 did not amend nor repeal Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752 but merely
implement the law. The respondent Board was merely exercising its rule-making power under Section 13
of P.D. No. 1752. It had the option to use “and” only instead of “or” in the rules on waiver in order to
effectively implement the Pag-IBIG Fund Law. By choosing “and,” the Board has clarified the confusion
brought about by the use of “and/or” in Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752, as amended.
PETITIONER filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals but was dismissed.

Issue:

Whether the Amendments to the Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 7742, which
require the existence of a plan providing for both provident/retirement and housing benefits for
exemption from the Pag~IBIG Fund coverage under Presidential Decree No. 1752, as amended is valid
underthe delegation powers of the Pag ibig Fund.

Held:

No. Said law are null and void insofar as they require that an employer should have both a provident/
retirement plan and a housing plan superior to the benefits offered by the Fund in order to qualify for
waiver or suspension of the Fund coverage.

Stat con:

The controversy lies in the legal signification of the words "and/or." In the instant case, the legal
meaning of the words "and/or" should be taken in its ordinary signification, i.e., "either and or; e.g.
butter and/or eggs means butter and eggs or butter or eggs.

"The term `and/or' means that the effect shall be given to both the conjunctive "and" and the
disjunctive "or"; or that one word or the other may be taken accordingly as one or the other will best
effectuate the purpose intended by the legislature as gathered from the whole statute. The term is
used to avoid a construction which by the use of the disjunctive "or" alone will exclude the
combination of several of the alternatives or by the use of the conjunctive "and" will exclude the
efficacy of any one of the alternatives standing alone."

It is accordingly ordinarily held that the intention of the legislature in using the term "and/or" is that
the word "and" and the word "or" are to be used interchangeably.

It ... seems to us clear from the language of the enabling law that Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752 intended
that an employer with a provident plan or an employee housing plan superior to that of the fund may
obtain exemption from coverage. If the law had intended that the employee [sic] should have both a
superior provident plan and a housing plan in order to qualify for exemption, it would have used the
words "and" instead of "and/or." Notably, paragraph (a) of Section 19 requires for annual certification
of waiver or suspension, that the features of the plan or plans are superior to the fund or continue to
be so. The law obviously contemplates that the existence of either plan is considered as sufficient
basis for the grant of an exemption; needless to state, the concurrence of both plans is more than
sufficient. To require the existence of both plans would radically impose a more stringent condition for
waiver which was not clearly envisioned by the basic law. By removing the disjunctive word "or" in the
implementing rules the respondent Board has exceeded its authority

You might also like