Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=28703:g-r-no-l-79576-august-3,-1988-celso-m-larga-v-santiago-ranada,-jr&amp;catid=1240&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:34:36+00:00

Document:
CELSO M. LARGA, Petitioner, v. HON. SANTIAGO RANADA, JR., Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 137, ASSISTANT FISCAL EDWIN CONDAYA, Prosecuting Fiscal of Branch 137, and HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND, Respondents.
Ariel M. Los Baños for Petitioner.
Florentino C. de los Santos and Celso Fernandez III for Respondents.
1.	STATUTES; SECTIONS 9 AND 10, EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 90 AMENDING SECTION 4; P.D. 1752; NOT TO BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT. — Obligations under the statute already accrued as of 1 January 1987 did not lose their positive law obligatory character. More specifically, the obligation to remit to the Fund previously accrued employer-employee contributions continued to exist and be exigible. Put a little differently, Sections 9 and 10 of Executive Order No. 90 amended Section 4 of P.D. No. 1752, not retroactively, but only prospectively.
2.	ID.; ID.; ID.; EVEN IF FAVORABLE TO ACCUSED. — It is perhaps well to stress that there was no constitutional compulsion upon the legislative authority to amend Section 4 of P.D. No. 1752 retroactively. A court, moreover, cannot give retroactive effect to Sections 9 and 10 of Executive Order No. 90, even though favorable to the accused-petitioner, against the express terms of the amending provisions themselves.
3.	ID.; RULE THAT PROVISIONS ARE IMPLIEDLY REPEALED ONLY WHERE THERE IS CLEAR INCONSISTENCY AND IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT. — It is commonplace learning that implied repeals are not favored in law and are not casually to be assumed. The first effort of a court must always be to reconcile or adjust the provisions of one statute with those of another so as to give sensible effect to both provisions. Only where there is clear inconsistency and irreconcilable conflict between the provisions of two (2) statutes, may a court hold that the provisions later in point of time have impliedly repealed the earlier ones.
Petitioner Celso M. Larga, one of the owners and operators of the "Bistcor Diesel Calibration Service," issued in favor of respondent Home Development Mutual Fund ("HDMF") Security Bank & Trust Company Check No. 225466 in the amount of P3,840.00 as payment of the employer-employee contributions to the Pag-ibig Fund pertaining to the period from January to April 1984. The check was, however, dishonored for being stale when it was presented for payment by the drawee bank. Demand was made upon petitioner Larga to replace the dishonored check or otherwise to pay the amount thereof in full, but he failed and refused to comply.
That on or about the period from January 1984 up to the present in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, being then the owners and operators of BISTCOR DIESEL CALIBRATION SERVICE conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another end with intent to defraud the HDMF, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously fail and refuse to remit to the HDMF the employer-employee monthly contributions amounting to TWENTY SIX THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY (P26,880.00) PESOS, more or less, computed as of April 1986 despite regular deductions made on their monthly salaries.
On 10 April 1987, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash asserting as ground thereof that the criminal liability for the offense with which he was charged was extinguished with the issuance of Executive Order No. 90 dated 17 December 1986 by the President of the Philippines, since Section 10 there of had made contributions to the Home Development Mutual Fund ("HDMF") voluntary. Consequently, petitioner argues, the respondent court had lost its jurisdiction to try and sentence the petitioner for the crime charged in the above-quoted information.
On 18 May 1987, private respondent HDMF filed an Opposition to the Motion to Quash, arguing that Section 10 of Executive Order No. 90 had merely amended the portion of Presidential Decree No. 1752 dealing with the nature of contributions to the Pag-ibig Fund by making such contributions voluntary commencing from January 1987, and that non-remittance of contributions accruing before January 1987 was still punishable under Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1752.
On 9 June 1987, the Regional Trial Court deemed the Motion to Quash.
On 10 June 1987, petitioner filed a Reply to the Opposition to the Motion to Quash, there arguing that Section 10 (b) and (c) of Executive Order No. 90 and the Implementing Rules operated as an absolute repeal of Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1752. Considering that said repeal was favorable to the petitioner, he urged that it should be applied retroactively to cover his case.
In the instant Petition, petitioner urges once more that criminal liability for the acts with which he was charged has been extinguished and that the Regional Trial Court has lost its jurisdiction to try and sentence the petitioner.
Most briefly put, Presidential Decree No. 1752 created the HDMF which was funded by savings which covered government and private sector employees contributed for that purpose every month and by the counterpart amounts which employers contributed, based on a graduated percentage of the basic monthly pay of the employees. These percentage were: 1% — in 1981; 2% — in 1982; and 3% — in 1983 and onwards.
"Section 4.	Fund Coverage. — Coverage of the Fund shall be mandatory upon all employees covered by the Social Security System and the Government Service Insurance System, and their respective employers.
c.	Instituting a single mandatory contribution rate for employees and employers for all social insurance programs.
a.	All existing contributions together with their accumulated earnings shall be retained in the Home Development Mutual Fund until their maturity in accordance with existing rules and regulations.
b.	Membership in the fund for new private and government employees and their respective employers shall be voluntary after December 31, 1986.
c.	After December 31, 1986, existing members, both employees and employers, shall have the option to continue or discontinue new Fund contributions.
Fernan (C.J.), Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.
1.	Rollo, p. 14, Annex "A" of Petition.
2.	It is, in other words, the intent of the legislative authority in enacting the mendatory statute that must be given effect. Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code which states that" [p]enal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony —," does not affect the foregoing rule. See e.g., Pardo de Tavera v. Valdez, 1 Phil. 468 (1902).
3.	Jalandoni v. Endaya, 55 SCRA 261 (1974); Villegas v. Subido, 41 SCRA 190, 196-197 (1971); National Power Corporation v. ARCA, 25 SCRA 931 (1968); U.S. v. Palacios, 33 Phil. 208 (1916); and Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association, Inc. v. Feliciano, 13 SCRA 377 (1965).
4.	Philippine American Management Co., Inc. v. Philippine American Management Employees Association, 49 SCRA 194 (1973); and Villegas v. Subido, 41 SCRA 190 (1971).
6.	Section 9, Rule IV, HDMF Implementing Rules and Regulations in relation to Section 23, P.D. No. 1752 as amended.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.