EN BANC
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ESTEBAN ZETA, Defendant-Appellant.
LABRADOR, J.:
TOPIC: CC, Art. 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.
FACTS:
1. Eugenio Albiza, an enlisted man of the Philippine Army and later of the United States Armed Forces in the Far East (USAFFE), suffered disability in the course of rendering services for the army in Aparri, Cagayan in the year 1942. He wanted to claim his backpay, insurance, and other privileges granted by law.
2. 06 November 1946, Albiza promised Esteban Zeta 5% of any amount he may receive from his claims with the condition that Zeta would be the one to process everything.
3. Albiza received P5,919 from the US Veterans Administration and with respect to their contract, he paid Zeta P200 on June 7, 1951 and P100 on June 11, 1951.
4. The law enforced at their time of agreement was the Commonwealth Act. No 675, Section 11 allowing an attorney, agent, or other person in charge of preparation, filing or claims under said act to charge not more than 5% of the total sum and that it shall only be demandable after the payment.
5. On 14 June 1947, Republic Act No. 145 was passed. It states:
Any person assisting a claimant in the preparation, presentation and prosecution of his claim for benefits under the laws of the United States administered by the United States Veterans Administration who shall, directly or indirectly, solicit, contract for, charge, or receive,m or who shall attempt to solicit, contract for, charge, or receive any fee or compensation exceeding twenty pesos in any one claim, or who shall collect his fee before the claim is actually paid to a beneficiary or claimant, shall be deemed guilty of an offense and upon conviction therof shall for every offense be fined not exceeding one thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding two years or both, in the discretion of the court.
6. The trial court held that upon the passage of Republic Act No. 145, the agreement for the payment of a 5 percent fee on the amount collected was voided and compliance therewith became illegal; so it sentenced the defendant-appellant to pay a fine of P200, to indemnify Eugenio Albiza in the sum of P280, or suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
7. Zeta's counsel appealed that application of Republic Act No. 145 to the defendant-appellant for having charged and collected the fee of 5 percent is an infringement of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.
8. However, the collection of fee was effected after R.A. No. 145 had been passed. The claim that said Act is an ex post facto law is not fully justified because although the services were rendered before the Act took effect, collection for said services did not take place until after the law became effective.
ISSUE:
W/N R.A. No. 145 can be retroactively applied to the contract of Zeta and Albiza's agreement since the fees were only collected after the passage of the said act.
RULING:
NO. R.A. No. 145 cannot be retroactively applied. Commonwealth Act. No 675, Section 11 was still the governing law when the agreement was entered into by Albiza and Zeta, although the services were rendered first and the payment only came after R.A. No. 145 was passed, it cannot be applied since the legislative intent for this act was prospective. The Court also noted that the 5% fee as per Commonwealth Act No. 675 was reasonable since it was to complainant Albiza's benefit. The right to the fees accrued upon such rendition. Only the payment of the fee was subject to change upon the approval of the claim. R.A. No. 145 must be given a prospective application only and not retroactive to affect the agreement they have voluntarily entered into and rights that had accrued by virtue of the previous law.
Thus, the appeal is reversed in favor of Zeta.
Comments
Post a Comment