STATCON [MAIN CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT] The CA also ruled that the DOTC

Hon. Arturo C. Corona vs. Court of Appeals Secretary is without jurisdiction over the administrative cases against Bungubung
September 30, 1992 | Romero, J. | How statues in pari materia construed and Dinopol for two reasons:

Petitioners: HON. ARTURO C. CORONA, COMMODORE ROGELIO A. 1. While PD. 807 (Civil Service Law) gives the Department heads jurisdiction
DAYAN, and EUFRACIO SEGUNDO C. PAGUNURAN, to investigate and decide over matters involving disciplinary action against
Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS, LEOPOLDO F. BUNGUBUNG and officers and employees under their jurisdiction, said law cannot prevail over
CRISTETO E. DINOPOL Section 8, Article V of PD 857 (PPA Charter) which states that the General
Manager of the PPA has jurisdiction over such cases. The CA stated that
PPA Charter is a special law while the Civil Service Law is a general
SUMMARY: On May 15, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued
law. Special law over General law. Also, the CA stated that PPA Charter
Administrative Order No. 25 creating a Presidential Committee on Public Ethics and
was enacted recently (Dec. 23, 1975) compared to the Civil Service Law
Accountability which states that the Department Secretary shall be directly
(Oct 6, 1975). (STATCON)
responsible to the President for eradicating graft and corruption in his department
2. The power of review by the DOTC Secretary, acting as an alter ego of the
and the offices, agencies, and government-owned corporations under said
President, was repealed by PD 1409. (NON STATCON)
department. Pursuant to AO No. 25, the DOTC Secretary issued and order creating
the Administrative Action Board (AAB) to act, decide and recommend to the
Petitioners appealed, hence the present petition for review on certiorari.
Secretary over cases of graft and corruption.
The issues are:
On August 26, 1988, two police officers filed with the AAB a complaint against
1. [STATCON ISSUE] Whether or not the DOTC Secretary has jurisdiction
respondent Bungubung, the District Manager of the Port of Manila. Bungubung
over the case.
moved to dismiss the case by assailing that the AAB does not have jurisdiction
2. [NON STATCON ISSUE] Whether or not the DOTC has the power of
over the case but was denied by DOTC Secretary Rainerio Reyes. Later, petitioner
review acting as an alter ego of the President.
Dayan, the PPA General Manager filed another formal charge against Bungubung.
ISSUE NO. 2 [NON STATCON]. The Court held that, citing Jurisprudence, the
Also, on August 26, 1988, Secretary Reyes filed a complaint to the AAB against
DOTC Secretary’s jurisdiction is only appellate jurisdiction and the power to initiate
respondent Dinopol, Manager of the Port of Davao for dishonesty and grave
falls to the General Manager of the PPA because no man can be at once a litigant
misconduct. Dinopol contended that the PPA General Manager, not the AAB, has
and judge.
jursidiction over the case pursuant to PD No. 857, or the PPA Charter.
ISSUE NO. 1: The Court held that the interpretation of the Court of Appeals is
On October 27, 1988, the AAB rendered its decision finding Dinopol guilty as
CORRECT. The PPA Charter (special law) should prevail over the Civil Service
charged and dismissed him from his office plus penalties.
Law (general law). considering that where a later special law on a particular subject
is repugnant to, or inconsistent with, a prior general law on the same subject, a
On December 6, 1988, Dinopol filed with the RTC of Pasig, a petition (certiorari,
partial repeal of the latter will be implied to the extent of the inconsistency, or
prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
an exception grafted upon the general law. Since, in a sense, the two laws are in
order) contending the jurisdiction of AAB over the cases against him. The RTC ruled
pari materia, both should be construed as to harmonize with each other. Interpretare
in favor of Dinopol, ordering the petitioners in this case, to stop continuing the
et concordare legibus est optimus interpretandi. Every statute must be so construed
proceedings. The RTC then reinstated Dinopol to his former position. The petitioners
and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence.
appealed to the SC which ruled in favor of the petitioners and the cases of Bungubung
and Dinopol were consolidated and were reinstated to the Court of appeals for
For the assumption is that whenever the legislature enacts a law, it has in mind the
appropriate action.
previous statutes relating to the same subject matter, and in the absence of any
express repeal or amendment, the new statute is deemed enacted in accordance with
In July 5 and 20 of 1989, the CA ruled in favor of the respondents (Bungubung and
the legislative policy embodied in those prior statutes.
Dinopol), reinstating them to their former positions and payment of backwages.
Applying such rules, the DOTC Secretary has not entirely relinquished his power of
control and supervision over an attached agency, such as the PPA. The PPA Charter
merely defined and, to a certain extent, delimited such power which, under the Civil
Service law is of general application. The PPA Charter limited the power of the
DOTC Secretary, given by the Civil Service Law, to only appellate power.

Hence, the Court denied the petition, the decision of the AAB against Dinopol were
declared null and void, and the case of Bungubung was remanded to the General
Manager of the PPA for reinvestigation.

DOCTRINES:

1. When in pare materia, statutes relate to the same person or thing, or have
the same purpose or object, or cover the same specific or particular subject
matter.

2. (AGPALO) Statutes in pari materia should be construed together to attain

the purpose of an express national policy. For the assumption is that
whenever the legislature enacts a law, it has in mind the previous statutes
relating to the same subject matter, and in the absence of any express repeal
or amendment, the new statute is deemed enacted in accordance with the
legislative policy embodied in those prior statutes.

3. Special or Particular Law over General Law.

4. Interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus interpretandi. Every statute

must be so construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a
uniform system of jurisprudence