Perez v. LPG Refillers Association

PEREZ v. LPG REFILLERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES implement B.P. Blg. 33.
(Kat) 3. Section 4: No Price Display Board: LPG Marketer/LPG Dealer/LPG Retail

June 26, 2006 | Quisimbing, J. | Due Process Outlet. Penalties: (a) Reprimand/Warning Letter; (b) Recommend
suspension of business; (c) Recommend business closure.
PETITIONER: Sec. Vincent S. Perez 4. Section 5: No Weighing Scale – the fines range from Php 1,000- Php
RESPONDENTS: LPG Refillers Association of the Philippines Inc. 10,000 with the risk of closure of business for third time offenders.
Penalties imposed would depend if the LPG business is classified as LPG
SUMMARY:Batas Pambansa Blg. 33, as amended, penalizes illegal trading, Refiller/Marketer, Dealer, or an LPG Retail Outlet.
hoarding, overpricing, adulteration, underdelivery, and underfilling of 5. Section 10: Tampering (Penalties: Php 1,500-Php 10, 000) with risk of
petroleum products, as well as possession for trade of adulterated petroleum business closure for third time offenders.
products and of underfilled liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders.3 The said 6. Section 11: Unauthorized Refilling (Penalties: Php 5, 000- Php 10,000) with
law sets a penalty for violators to a minimum of P20,000 and a maximum of risk of business closure for third time offenders.
P50,000. On June 9, 2000, Circular No. 2000-06-010 was issued by the DOE to 7. Secion 12: Hoarding of Petroleum Products (Fine: Php 10,000)
implement B.P. Blg. 33. Penalties were imposed for the failure to display price 8. Section 14: Refusal to pay Fine
board, no weighing scale, tampering, unauthorized refilling, hoarding and 9. Respondent LPG Refillers Association of the Philippines, Inc. asked the
refusal to pay fine. The penalties would range from Php 1500-Php 10000 and DOE to set aside the Circular for being contrary to law. The DOE, however,
for third time offenders: business closure. Respondent LPG Refillers denied the request for lack of merit.
Association of the Philippines, Inc. asked the DOE to set aside the Circular for 10. Respondent then filed a petition for prohibition and annulment with prayer
being contrary to law. Pasig RTC rendered that the DOE Circular was null and for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction before
void while the SC upheld its validity. the trial court. After trial on the merits, the trial court nullified the Circular
on the ground that it introduced new offenses not included in the law.6 The
DOCTRINE: For an administrative regulation, such as the Circular in this case, court intimated that the Circular, in providing penalties on a per cylinder
to have the force of penal law, (1) the violation of the administrative regulation basis for each violation, might exceed the maximum penalty under the law.
must be made a crime by the delegating statute itself; and (2) the penalty for The decretal part of its Decision reads:
such violation must be provided by the statute itself. These specific acts and 11. The RTC of Pasig rendered judgment declaring DOE Circular No. 2000-06-
omissions are obviously within the contemplation of the law, which seeks to 010 null and void and prohibits the respondent from implementing the
curb the pernicious practices of some petroleum merchants. Furthermore, this same.
mere silence, nonetheless, does not amount to violation of the aforesaid
statutory maximum limit. Further, the mere fact that the Circular provides ISSUE/s:
penalties on a per cylinder basis does not in itself run counter to the law since 1. Is the DOE Circular Null and Void? – NO.
all that B.P. Blg. 33 prescribes are the minimum and the maximum limits of
penalties. The Circular is specifically intended to provide the DOE with RULING: SC reversed the decision rendered by Pasig RTC.
increased administrative and penal measures with which to effectively curtail
rampant adulteration and shortselling, as well as other acts involving petroleum RATIO:
products, which are inimical to public interest. 1. For an administrative regulation, such as the Circular in this case, to
have the force of penal law, (1) the violation of the administrative
regulation must be made a crime by the delegating statute itself; and
(2) the penalty for such violation must be provided by the statute itself.
2. The Circular satisfies the first requirement. B.P. Blg. 33, as amended,
FACTS:
criminalizes illegal trading, adulteration, underfilling, hoarding, and
1. Batas Pambansa Blg. 33, as amended, penalizes illegal trading, hoarding,
overpricing of petroleum products. Under this general description of what
overpricing, adulteration, underdelivery, and underfilling of petroleum
constitutes criminal acts involving petroleum products, the Circular merely
products, as well as possession for trade of adulterated petroleum products
lists the various modes by which the said criminal acts may be perpetrated,
and of underfilled liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders.3 The said law
namely: no price display board, no weighing scale, no tare weight or
sets a penalty for violators to a minimum of P20,000 and a maximum of
incorrect tare weight markings, no authorized LPG seal, no trade name,
P50,000.
unbranded LPG cylinders, no serial number, no distinguishing color, no
2. On June 9, 2000, Circular No. 2000-06-010 was issued by the DOE to
embossed identifying markings on cylinder, underfilling LPG cylinders,
tampering LPG cylinders, and unauthorized decanting of LPG cylinders.
These specific acts and omissions are obviously within the contemplation of
the law, which seeks to curb the pernicious practices of some petroleum
merchants.
3. As for the second requirement, we find that the Circular is in accord with
the law. Under B.P. Blg. 33, as amended, the monetary penalty for any
person who commits any of the acts aforestated is limited to a minimum of
P20,000 and a maximum of P50,000. Under the Circular, the maximum
pecuniary penalty for retail outlets is P20,000 an amount within the range
allowed by law. However, for the refillers, marketers, and dealers, the
Circular is silent as to any maximum monetary penalty. This mere silence,
nonetheless, does not amount to violation of the aforesaid statutory
maximum limit. Further, the mere fact that the Circular provides
penalties on a per cylinder basis does not in itself run counter to the law
since all that B.P. Blg. 33 prescribes are the minimum and the
maximum limits of penalties.
4. Clearly, it is B.P. Blg. 33, as amended, which defines what constitute
punishable acts involving petroleum products and which set the minimum
and maximum limits for the corresponding penalties. The Circular merely
implements the said law, albeit it is silent on the maximum pecuniary
penalty for refillers, marketers, and dealers. Nothing in the Circular
contravenes the law.
5. Noteworthy, the enabling laws on which the Circular is based were
specifically intended to provide the DOE with increased administrative
and penal measures with which to effectively curtail rampant
adulteration and shortselling, as well as other acts involving petroleum
products, which are inimical to public interest. To nullify the Circular
in this case would be to render inutile government efforts to protect the
general consuming public against the nefarious practices of some
unscrupulous LPG traders.

Perez v. LPG Refillers Association

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perez v. LPG Refillers Association

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Perez v. LPG Refillers Association

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEREZ v. LPG REFILLERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES implement B.P. Blg. 33.

(Kat) 3. Section 4: No Price Display Board: LPG Marketer/LPG Dealer/LPG Retail

You might also like