P

TITLE: People of the Phils v Que Po Lay

CITATION: 94 Phil 640 | GR No. 6791, March 29, 1954

FACTS:
The appellant was in possession of foreign exchange consisting of US dollars, US checks
and US money orders amounting to about $7000 but failed to sell the same to the Central
in its common, generally accepted meaning, i.e., as a rate of pay for a standard work
period exclusive of such additional payments as bonuses and overtime. In remunerative
schemes consists of a fixed or guaranteed wage plus commission, the fixed or guaranteed
wage is patently the “basic salary” for this is what the employee receives for a standard
work period. Commissions are given for extra efforts exerted in consummating sales of
other related transactions. They are, as such, additional pay, which the SC has made clear

E
Bank as required under Circular No. 20.
Circular No. 20 was issued in the year 1949 but was published in the Official Gazette only
on Nov. 1951 after the act or omission imputed to Que Po Lay.
Que Po Lay appealed from the decision of the lower court finding him guilty of violating
Central Bank Circular No. 20 in connection with Sec 34 of RA 265 sentencing him to
suffer 6 months imprisonment, pay fine of P1,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
do not from part of the “basic salary.” Moreover, the Supreme Court said that, including
commissions in the computation of the 13th month pay, the second paragraph of Section
5(a) of the Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of the 13th Month Pay Law unduly
expanded the concept of "basic salary" as defined in P.D. 851. It is a fundamental rule that
implementing rules cannot add to or detract from the provisions of the law it is designed
to implement. Administrative regulations adopted under legislative authority by a
particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law they are

O
ISSUE: Whether or not publication of Circular 20 in the Official Gazette is needed for it intended to carry into effect. They cannot widen its scope. An administrative agency
to become effective and subject violators to corresponding penalties. cannot amend an act of Congress.
HELD:
It was held by the Supreme Court, in an en banc decision, that as a rule, circular and
regulations of the Central Bank in question prescribing a penalty for its violation should PEOPLE vs. MACEREN 79 SCRA 450, G.R. No. L-32166, October 18, 1977 Facts: The
be published before becoming effective. This is based on the theory that before the public respondents were charged with violating Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84-1 which
is bound by its contents especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation or circular must penalizes electro fishing in fresh water fisheries. This was promulgated by the Secretary
first be published for the people to be officially and specifically informed of such contents

P
of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries under the old
including its penalties. Fisheries Law and the law creating the Fisheries Commission. The municipal court
Thus, the Supreme Court reversed the decision appealed from and acquit the appellant, quashed the complaint and held that the law does not clearly prohibit electro fishing,
with costs de oficio. hence the executive and judicial departments cannot consider the same. On appeal, the
CFI affirmed the dismissal. Hence, this appeal to the SC.
Tañada vs. Tuvera
FACTS: Issue: Whether or not the administrative order penalizing electro fishing is valid.
Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish,

L
and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential decrees,
letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of
implementation and administrative orders, invoking the right to be informed on matters
of public concern as recognized by the 1973 constitution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the publication of presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general
orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation and administrative
Held: NO. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of
Fisheries exceeded their authority in issuing the administrative order. The old Fisheries
Law does not expressly prohibit electro fishing. As electro fishing is not banned under
that law, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of
Fisheries are powerless to penalize it. Had the lawmaking body intended to punish
electro fishing, a penal provision to that effect could have been easily embodied in the
old Fisheries Law. The lawmaking body cannot delegate to an executive official the

E
orders is necessary before its enforcement.
RULING:
Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that “laws shall take effect after fifteen days
following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise
provided ” The Court has ruled that publication in the Official Gazette is necessary in
those cases where the legislation itself does not provide for its effectivity date-for then
the date of publication is material for determining its date of effectivity, which is the
fifteenth day following its publication-but not when the law itself provides for the date
when it goes into effect. Article 2 does not preclude the requirement of publication in the
Official Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity.
The publication of all presidential issuances “of a public nature” or “of general
applicability” is mandated by law. Obviously, presidential decrees that provide for fines,
forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwise impose a burden or. the people,
such as tax and revenue measures, fall within this category. Other presidential issuances
which apply only to particular persons or class of persons such as administrative and
executive orders need not be published on the assumption that they have been
power to declare what acts should constitute an offense. It can authorize the issuance of
regulations and the imposition of the penalty provided for in the law itself. Where the
legislature has delegated to executive or administrative officers and boards authority to
promulgate rules to carry out an express legislative purpose, the rules of administrative
officers and boards, which have the effect of extending, or which conflict with the
authority granting statute, do not represent a valid precise of the rule-making power but
constitute an attempt by an administrative body to legislate Administrative agent are
clothed with rule-making powers because the lawmaking body finds it impracticable, if
not impossible, to anticipate and provide for the multifarious and complex situations that
may be encountered in enforcing the law. All that is required is that the regulation
should be germane to the defects and purposes of the law and that it should conform to
the standards that the law prescribes. 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, of course, the law itself cannot be extended. The rule-
making power must be confined to details for regulating the mode or proceeding to carry

V
circularized to all concerned. into effect the law as it his been enacted. The power cannot be extended to amending or
Publication is, therefore, mandatory. expanding the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute.
Rules that subvert the statute cannot be sanctioned.
BOIE-TAKEDA CHEMICALS INC vs. DELA SERNA 228 SCRA 329, G.R. No. 92174,
December 10, 1993
Facts: P.D. No. 851 provides for the Thirteen-Month Pay Law. Under Sec. 1 of said law,
“all employers are required to pay all their employees receiving basic salary of not more

S
than P 1,000.00 a month, regardless of the nature of the employment, and such should be
paid on December 24 of every year.” The Rules and Regulations Implementing P.D. 851
contained provisions defining “13-month pay” and “basic salary” and the employers
exempted from giving it and to whom it is made applicable. Supplementary Rules and
Regulations Implementing P.D. 851 were subsequently issued by Minister Ople which
inter alia set items of compensation not included in the computation of 13-month pay.
(overtime pay, earnings and other remunerations which are not part of basic salary shall

.
not be included in the computation of 13- month pay). Pres. Corazon Aquino
promulgated on August 13, 1985 M.O. No. 28, containing a single provision that modifies
P.D. 851 by removing the salary ceiling of P 1,000.00 a month. More than a year later,
Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of the 13-month pay law was promulgated by
the then Labor Secretary Franklin Drilon, among other things, defined particularly what
remunerative items were and were not included in the concept of 13-month pay, and
specifically dealt with employees who are paid a fixed or guaranteed wage plus
commission or commissions were included in the computation of 13th month pay) A
routine inspection was conducted in the premises of petitioner. Finding that petitioner
had not been including the commissions earned by its medical representatives in the
computation of their 1-month pay, a Notice of Inspection Result was served on petitioner
to effect restitution or correction of “the CASE DIGEST: CHAPTER III
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT & ELECTION LAW
meikimouse underpayment of 13-month pay for the years, 1986 to 1988 of Medical
representatives. Petitioner wrote the Labor Department contesting the Notice of

M
Inspection Results, and expressing the view that the commission paid to its medical
representatives are not to be included in the computation of the 13-moth pay since the
law and its implementing rules speak of REGULAR or BASIC salary and therefore
exclude all remunerations which are not part of the REGULAR salary. Regional Dir. Luna
Piezas issued an order for the payment of underpaid 13-month pay for the years 1986,
1987 and 1988. A motion for reconsideration was filed and the then Acting labor
Secretary Dionisio de la Serna affirmed the order with modification that the sales
commission earned of medical representatives before August 13, 1989 (effectivity date of

A
MO 28 and its implementing guidelines) shall be excluded in the computation of the 13-
month pay. Similar routine inspection was conducted in the premises of Phil. Fuji Xerox
where it was found there was underpayment of 13th month pay since commissions were
not included. In their almost identically-worded petitioner, petitioners, through common
counsel, attribute grave abuse of discretion to respondent labor officials Hon. Dionisio
dela Serna and Undersecretary Cresenciano B. Trajano.
Issue: Whether or not commissions are included in the computation of 13-month pay.
Held: NO. Contrary to respondent’s contention, M.O No. 28 did not repeal, supersede or

C
abrogate P.D. 851. As may be gleaned from the language of MO No. 28, it merely
“modified” Section 1 of the decree by removing the P 1,000.00 salary ceiling. The concept
of 13th Month pay as envisioned, defined and implemented under P.D. 851 remained
unaltered, and while entitlement to said benefit was no longer limited to employees
receiving a monthly basic salary of not more than P 1,000.00 said benefit was, and still is,
to be computed on the basic salary of the employee-recipient as provided under P.D. 851.
Thus, the interpretation given to the term “basic salary” was defined in PD 851 applies
equally to “basic salary” under M.O. No. 28. The term “basic salary” is to be understood