Perez v. LPG Refillers Association of The Philippines

THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 159149. June 26, 2006.]
The HONORABLE SECRETARY VINCENT S. PEREZ, in his

capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Energy, petitioner, vs.
LPG REFILLERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC.,
respondent.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.

Florentino & Esmaquel Law Office for respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. POLITICAL LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE

REGULATION; REQUIREMENTS TO HAVE THE FORCE OF PENAL LAW. —
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. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; VIOLATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE

REGULATION MUST BE MADE A CRIME BY THE DELEGATING STATUTE
ITSELF; SATISFIED IN CIRCULAR NO. 2000-06-010 OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY (DOE) PER BP BLG. 33. — Circular No. 2000-06-010 of the
Department of Energy (DOE) satisfies the first requirement. B.P. Blg. 33, as
amended, criminalizes illegal trading, adulteration, underfilling, hoarding, and
overpricing of petroleum products. Under this general description of what constitutes
criminal acts involving petroleum products, the Circular merely lists the various
modes by which the said criminal acts may be perpetrated, namely: no price display
board, no weighing scale, no tare weight or incorrect tare weight markings, no
authorized LPG seal, no trade name, unbranded LPG cylinders, no serial number, no
distinguishing color, no 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.
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 Third Release 1
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PENALTY FOR VIOLATION MUST BE PROVIDED
BY THE STATUTE ITSELF; CIRCULAR NO. 2000-06-010 OF THE DOE, IN
ACCORD WITH BP BLG. 33. — 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. 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. 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. AEHCDa
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J : p
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, assailing the
Decision 1(1) and Order 2(2) of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 161,
in SCA Case No. 2318, which nullified Circular No. 2000-06-010 of the Department
of Energy (DOE).
The facts are undisputed.
Batas Pambansa Blg. 33, as amended, penalizes illegal trading, hoarding,

overpricing, adulteration, underdelivery, and underfilling of petroleum products, as
well as possession for trade of adulterated petroleum products and of underfilled
liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders. 3(3) The said law sets the monetary penalty
for violators to a minimum of P20,000 and a maximum of P50,000. 4(4)
On June 9, 2000, Circular No. 2000-06-010 was issued by the DOE to

implement B.P. Blg. 33, thus:
SECTION 4. NO PRICE DISPLAY BOARD —
LPG Marketer/LPG Dealer/LPG Retail Outlet
1st Offense - Reprimand/warning letter
2nd Offense - Recommend suspension of business

operation to the proper local government
unit
3rd Offense - Recommend business closure to the proper

local government unit and initiate criminal
proceedings
SECTION 5. NO WEIGHING SCALE —
A. LPG Refiller/Marketer
1st Offense - Fine of P5,000
2nd Offense - Fine of P10,000
3rd Offense - Recommend business closure
to the proper local government unit
B. Dealer
2nd Offense - Fine of P7,000
3rd Offense - Recommend business closure to the
proper local government unit
C. LPG Retail Outlet
1st Offense - Reprimand

2nd Offense - Fine of P500.00
3rd Offense - Fine of P1,000.00
SECTION 6. NO TARE WEIGHT OR INCORRECT TARE WEIGHT
MARKINGS. (REQUIREMENT ON ENGRAVED TARE WEIGHT SHALL
TAKE EFFECT TWO (2) YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVITY OF THIS
CIRCULAR)
1st Offense - Fine of P3,000 for each cylinder

2nd Offense - Fine of P5,000 for each cylinder
B. Dealer


SECTION 7. NO APPROPRIATE OR AUTHORIZED LPG SEAL

B. Dealer


SECTION 8. NO TRADE NAME, UNBRANDED LPG CYLINDERS, NO
SERIAL NUMBER, NO DISTINGUISHING COLOR, NO EMBOSSED
IDENTIFYING MARKINGS ON CYLINDER OR DISTINCTIVE COLLAR
OR DESIGN (REQUIREMENT ON SERIAL NUMBER AND
DISTINCTIVE COLLAR OR DESIGN SHALL TAKE EFFECT TWO (2)
YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVITY OF THIS CIRCULAR)

B. Dealer


SECTION 9. UNDERFILLED LPG CYLINDERS
A. LPG REFILLER/MARKETER

B. DEALER
C. LPG RETAIL OUTLET

SECTION 10. TAMPERING, ALTERING, OR MODIFYING OF LPG
CYLINDER THRU ANY MEANS SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO
CHANGING THE VALVE, REPAINTING, AND RELABELLING BY ANY
PERSON OR ENTITY OTHER THAN THE LEGITIMATE AND
REGISTERED OWNER OF THE SAME. FOR THIS PURPOSE, LPG
REFILLER, MARKETER, DEALER, OR RETAIL OUTLET, AS THE CASE
MAY BE, WHO HAS POSSESSION OF SUCH ILLEGALLY TAMPERED,
ALTERED, OR OTHERWISE MODIFIED LPG CYLINDER SHALL BE
HELD LIABLE FOR THIS OFFENSE

B. Dealer


SECTION 11. UNAUTHORIZED DECANTING OR REFILLING OF LPG
CYLINDERS

SECTION 12. HOARDING OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS INCLUDING
LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS
1st Offense - Fine of P10,000 per cylinder

2nd Offense - Recommend business closure to the
proper local government unit plus
the filing of appropriate criminal
action
SECTION 13. REFUSAL TO ALLOW OR COOPERATE WITH DULY
AUTHORIZED INSPECTORS OF THE ENERGY INDUSTRY
ADMINISTRATION BUREAU (EIAB) OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY IN THE CONDUCT OF THEIR
INSPECTION/INVESTIGATION, WHETHER REGULAR AND
ROUTINARY OR COMPLAINT-INITIATED
2nd Offense - Recommend business closure to the proper

local government unit
SECTION 14. REFUSAL OR FAILURE TO PAY FINE — The Department

of Energy shall recommend to the proper local government unit the closure of
business of a respondent who refuses or fails to pay any administrative fine
without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate criminal action if warranted.
5(5)
Respondent LPG Refillers Association of the Philippines, Inc. asked the DOE
to set aside the Circular for being contrary to law. The DOE, however, denied the
request for lack of merit. AHCETa
Respondent then filed a petition for prohibition and annulment with prayer for
temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction before 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(6) The court intimated that the
Circular, in providing penalties on a per cylinder basis for each violation, might
exceed the maximum penalty under the law. The decretal part of its Decision reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Court renders judgment

declaring DOE Circular No. 2000-06-010 null and void and prohibits the
respondent from implementing the same.
SO ORDERED. 7(7)
The trial court denied for lack of merit petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Hence this petition, raising the following issues:
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN

HOLDING THAT "A CLOSE SCRUTINY OF BP 33, PD 1865 AND R.A.
NO. 8479 SHOWS THAT OFFENSES LIKE NO PRICE DISPLAY [BOARD],
NO WEIGHING SCALE, ETC. SET FORTH IN THE CIRCULAR ARE NOT
PROVIDED FOR IN ANY OF THE THREE (3) LAWS".
II

HOLDING THAT "A SCRUTINY OF THE NEW SET OF PENALTIES
PROVIDED BY THE CIRCULAR SHOWS THAT THE PENALTIES THIS
TIME ARE BASED ON PER CYLINDER BASIS"; THAT "BEING SUCH,
NO CEILING WAS PROVIDED FOR AS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
FINES"; THAT "AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE PETITIONER, FOR JUST
ONE LPG CYLINDER FOUND VIOLATING AT LEAST SEC[TIONS] 6, 7,
8, 9, 10 AND 11 OF THE [CIRCULAR], A FINE OF P24,000.00 IS
IMPOSED;" AND THAT "THIS WILL CLEARLY BE BEYOND THE
P10,000.00 PROVIDED BY THE LAWS."
III

HOLDING THAT SECTION 16 OF PETITIONER'S CIRCULAR WHICH
AUTHORIZES THE IMPOSITION OF PECUNIARY PENALTIES WITH
THE TOTAL FINE NOT EXCEEDING P20,000.00 FOR RETAIL OUTLETS
VIOLATES THE PENALTY CEILING OF P10,000.00 SET UNDER BP
BLG. 33, AS AMENDED.
IV

HOLDING THAT SINCE SECTION 5(g) OF R.A. 7638 FINDS NO
REFERENCE IN DOE CIRCULAR NO. 2000-06-010, THE SAME SHOULD
BE DISREGARDED.

HOLDING THAT "ON THE NEW OFFENSES INTRODUCED IN THE
CIRCULAR SUCH AS SECTIONS 4, 5, 10, 13 AND 14 AND THE
IMPOSITION OF THE GRADUATED PENALTIES ON 'A PER CYLINDER
BASIS', THIS COURT FINDS [NO] REASON TO DISTURB ITS FINDINGS
THAT RESPONDENT-MOVANT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY. . . . IT
SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THAT BP BLG. 33 AS AMENDED AND P.D.
1865 ARE CRIMINAL STATUTES AND MUST BE CONSTRUED WITH
SUCH STRICTNESS AS TO CAREFULLY SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF
THE DEFENDANT."
VI
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN HOLDING THAT

"THE ASSAILED CIRCULAR SETS NO MAXIMUM LIMIT AS TO THE
FINE THAT MAY BE IMPOSED ON AN ERRING PERSON OR ENTITY
TO WHICH FACT MOVANT CONCEDES. FOR ONE (1) CYLINDER
ALONE, NOT ONLY DOES THE CIRCULAR MAKE THE FINE
EXCESSIVE TO THE EXTENT OF BEING CONFISCATORY, BUT IT
EVEN IMPOSES A PENALTY WHICH MAY EVEN GO BEYOND THAT
MAXIMUM IMPOSABLE FINE OF P50,000.00 SET BY P.D. 1865 IN ITS
SEC. 4 AFTER A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING." 8(8)
To our mind, the issue raised by petitioner may be reduced to the sole issue of
whether the Regional Trial Court of Pasig erred in declaring the provisions of the
Circular null and void, and prohibiting the Circular's implementation.
Petitioner argues that the penalties for the acts and omissions enumerated in
the Circular are sanctioned by Sections 1 9(9) and 3-A 10(10) of B.P. Blg. 33 and
Section 23 11(11) of Republic Act No. 8479. 12(12) Petitioner adds that Sections 5(g)
13(13) and 21 14(14) of Republic Act No. 7638 15(15) also authorize the DOE to
impose the penalties provided in the Circular.
Respondent counters that the enabling laws, B.P. Blg. 33 and R.A. No. 8479,
do not expressly penalize the acts and omissions enumerated in the Circular. Neither
is the Circular supported by R.A. No. 7638, respondent claims, since the said law
does not pertain to LPG traders. Respondent maintains that the Circular is not in
conformity with the law it seeks to implement.
We resolve to grant the petition. AaDSTH
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. 16(16)
The Circular satisfies the first requirement. B.P. Blg. 33, as amended,
criminalizes illegal trading, adulteration, underfilling, hoarding, and overpricing of
petroleum products. Under this general description of what constitutes criminal acts
involving petroleum products, the Circular merely lists the various modes by which
the said criminal acts may be perpetrated, namely: no price display board, no
weighing scale, no tare weight or incorrect tare weight markings, no authorized LPG
seal, no trade name, unbranded LPG cylinders, no serial number, no distinguishing
color, no 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.
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, 17(17) 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.
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.
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.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Circular No.

2000-06-010 of DOE is declared valid. The Decision and Order of the Regional Trial
Court of Pasig City, Branch 161, in SCA Case No. 2318, nullifying said Circular and
prohibiting its implementation are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Tinga and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.

Perez v. LPG Refillers Association of The Philippines

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Perez v. LPG Refillers Association of The Philippines

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 159149. June 26, 2006.]

The HONORABLE SECRETARY VINCENT S. PEREZ, in his

The Solicitor General for petitioner.

1. POLITICAL LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; VIOLATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE

The facts are undisputed.

Batas Pambansa Blg. 33, as amended, penalizes illegal trading, hoarding,

On June 9, 2000, Circular No. 2000-06-010 was issued by the DOE to

SECTION 4. NO PRICE DISPLAY BOARD —

LPG Marketer/LPG Dealer/LPG Retail Outlet

1st Offense - Reprimand/warning letter

2nd Offense - Recommend suspension of business

3rd Offense - Recommend business closure to the proper

SECTION 5. NO WEIGHING SCALE —

1st Offense - Reprimand

1st Offense - Fine of P3,000 for each cylinder

1st Offense - Fine of P2,000 for each cylinder

1st Offense - Fine of P1,000 for each cylinder

1st Offense - Fine of P3,000 for each cylinder

1st Offense - Fine of P2,000 for each cylinder

1st Offense - Fine of P1,000 for each cylinder

1st Offense - Fine of P4,000 for each cylinder

1st Offense - Fine of P3,000 for each cylinder

1st Offense - Fine of P1,000 for each cylinder

1st Offense - Fine of P4,000 for each cylinder

1st Offense - Fine of P3,000 for each cylinder

1st Offense - Fine of P1,000 for each cylinder

1st Offense - Fine of P5,000 for each cylinder

1st Offense - Fine of P3,000 for each cylinder

1st Offense - Fine of P1,500 for each cylinder

1st Offense - Fine of P5,000 for each cylinder

1st Offense - Fine of P10,000 per cylinder

1st Offense - Fine of P10,000

2nd Offense - Recommend business closure to the proper

SECTION 14. REFUSAL OR FAILURE TO PAY FINE — The Department

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Court renders judgment

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN HOLDING THAT

We resolve to grant the petition. AaDSTH

Clearly, it is B.P. Blg. 33, as amended, which defines what constitute

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Circular No.

Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Tinga and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.

Вам также может понравиться