Clue: Veteran’s Bill of Rights wins over Administrative Rules
DOMINGO B. TEOXON, petitioner-appellant, vs. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATORS, PHILIPPINE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, Respondents-Appellees.
G.R. No. L-25619 June 30, 1970 FERNANDO, J.:
It cannot be otherwise as the Constitution limits the authority of the President, in whom all executive power resides, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. No lesser administrative executive office or agency then can, contrary to the express language of the Constitution, assert for itself a more extensive prerogative.
FACTS:
1. Petitioner filed filed in the Supreme Court based on his contention that his right as conferred by law takes precedence and be affirmed against to what the administrative rules and regulations of respondents provide.
2. Petitioner believes that he is entitled to the amount of P100.00 a month plus P10.00 a month for each of his four unmarried minor children below eighteen years of age, in accordance with law.
3. On April 23, 1965,¬ filed his suit for mandamus before the Court of First Instance of Manila alleging that he filed his claim for disability pension under the Veterans' Bill of Rights, Republic Act No. 65, for having been permanently incapacitated from work and that he was first awarded only P25.00 monthly, thereafter increased to P50.00 a month contrary to the terms of the basic law as thereafter amended.
4. The answer for respondents filed on May 25, 1965, while admitting, with qualification, the facts as alleged in the petition, would rely primarily in its special and affirmative defenses, on petitioner not having exhausted its administrative remedies and his suit being in effect one against the government, which cannot prosper without its consent.
5. The petitioner relied on what is set forth in the Veterans' Bill of Rights, as amended, respondents in turn limited the amount of pension received by him in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by them.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioner is entitled to benefits under Veteran’s Bill of Rights or to the rules and regulations promulgated by Philippine Veterans Administration
RULING: VETERANS BILL OF RIGHTS MUST BE FOLLOWED
1. The recognition of the power of administrative officials to promulgate rules in the implementation of the statute, necessarily limited to what is provided for in the legislative enactment.
6. The Court reaffirmed such a doctrine in a 1951 decision, where it made clear that where an administrative order betrays inconsistency or repugnancy to the provisions of the Act, "the mandate of the Act must prevail and must be followed."
7. It cannot be otherwise as the Constitution limits the authority of the President, in whom all executive power resides, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. No lesser administrative executive office or agency then can, contrary to the express language of the Constitution, assert for itself a more extensive prerogative.
8. The Veterans' Bill of Rights, as it read when enacted in 1946, insofar as pertinent, provides: "The persons mentioned in sections one and two hereof, who are permanently incapacitated from work owing to sickness, disease, or injuries sustained in line of duty, shall be given a life pension of fifty pesos a month unless they are actually receiving a similar pension from other government funds, and shall receive, in addition, the necessary hospitalization and medical care." The act took effect upon its approval, on Oct. 18 of that year.
9. Then, in 1955, came the first amendment in these words; "[Sec.] 9; The persons mentioned in sections one and two hereof who permanent incapacitated from work owing to sickness, disease, or injuries sustained in line of duty, shall be given a life pension of fifty pesos a month, and ten pesos a month for each of his unmarried minor children below eighteen years of age, unless they are actually receiving a similar pension from other government funds, and shall receive, in addition, the necessary hospitalization and medical care."
10. The present Section 9, as again amended in 1957, reads as follows: "The persons mentioned in sections one and two hereof who are permanently incapacitated from work owing sickness, disease, or injuries sustained in line of duty, shall be given a life pension of one hundred pesos a month, and ten pesos a month for each of his unmarried minor children below eighteen years of age, unless they are actually receiving a similar pension from other Government funds, and shall receive, in addition, the necessary hospitalization and medical care."
DECISION: The decision of the lower court is reverse.
Respondents are ordered to pay petitioner a pension effective as of May 10, 1955 at the rate of P50.00 a month up to June 21, 1957 and at the rate of P100.00 a month, plus P10.00 a month for each of his unmarried minor children below 18 years of age from June 22, 1957 up to June 30, 1963; and the difference of P50.00 a month plus P10.00 a month for each of his four unmarried minor children below 18 years of age from July 1, 1963 until the statutory rate has been satisfied. Thereafter petitioner is entitled to the amount of P100.00 a month plus P10.00 a month for each of his four unmarried minor children below eighteen years of age, in accordance with law.
Comments
Post a Comment