Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
MACEREN
G.R. No. L-32166
FACTS:
This is a case involving the validity of a 1967 regulation, penalizing electro
fishing in fresh water fisheries, promulgated by the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR) and the Commissioner of
Fisheries under the old Fisheries Law and the law creating the Fisheries
Commission (FC).
Upon motion of the accused, the municipal court quashed the complaint.
The prosecution appealed. The Court of First Instance of Laguna affirmed
the order of dismissal (Civil Case No. SC-36). Hence this appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the 1967 regulation, penalizing electro fishing in fresh
water fisheries, promulgated by the Secretary of ANR and the
Commissioner of Fisheries is valid.
RULING:
No. The court held that the Secretary of ANR and the Commissioner of
Fisheries exceeded their authority in issuing Fisheries Administrative
Orders Nos. 94 and 84-1since the law does not clearly prohibit electro
fishing.
Had the law making body intended to punish electro fishing, a penal
provision to that effect could have been easily embodied in the old
Fisheries Law. Administrative regulations adopted under legislative
authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the
provisions of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of carrying into
effect its general provisions. By such regulations, the law itself cannot be
extended to amend or expand the statutory requirements or to embrace
matters not covered by the statute.
FACTS:
Plaintiff-Appellee, Tayug Rural Bank, Inc. is a banking corporation in
Pangasinan. During the period from December 28, 1962 to July 30, 1963,
it obtained thirteen (13) loans from Defendant-Appellant, Central Bank of
the Philippines, by way of rediscounting, at the rate of 1/2 of 1% per
annum from 1962 to March 28, 1963 and thereafter at the rate of 2-1/2%
per anum. The loans, amounting to P813,000.00 as of July 30, 1963, were
all covered by corresponding promissory notes prescribing the terms and
On June 27, 1969, Tayug sued Central Bank in the CFI Manila to recover
the 10% penalty imposed by the latter and to restrain the same from
continuing the imposition of the penalty. Central Bank filed a counterclaim
for the outstanding balance and overdue accounts of Tayug plus accrued
interest and penalty at 10% per annum on the outstanding balance until
full payment. Further, Central Bank justified the imposition of the penalty
by way of affirmative and special defenses, stating that it was legally
imposed under the provisions of Section 147 and 148 of the Rules and
Regulations Governing Rural Banks promulgated by the Monetary Board
on September 5, 1958, under authority of Section 3 of Republic Act No.
720, as amended.
CFI ruled in favour of Tayug and ordered Central Bank to credit the plaintiff
the amounts collected as penalty and to refrain from collecting the said
penalty on the remaining past due loans of Tayug. On appeal, the CA
affirmed the CFI decision. Hence, this appeal
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Monetary Board had authority to authorize Central
Bank to impose a penalty rate of 10% per annum on past due loans of
rural banks which had failed to pay their accounts on time.
RULING:
Administrative rules have the force and effect of law. There are, however,
limitations in the rulemaking power of administrative agencies. All that is
required of administrative rules and regulations is to implement given
legislation by not contradicting it and conform to the standards prescribed
by law.
Rules and regulations cannot go beyond the basic law. Since compliance
therewith can be enforced by a penal sanction, an administrative agency
cannot implement a penalty not provided in the law authorizing it, much
less one that is applied retroactively.