RMBSD vs HDMF (Pag-ibig), 333 SCRA 777 G.R. No. 131082 June 19, 2000

 

RMBSD vs HDMF  333 SCRA 777 G.R. No. 131082  June 19, 2000

 

Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc, De Los Angeles

plaintiffs

Vs.

Home Dev’t Mutual Fund (HDMF)

respondents

 

Facts:

HDMF Board of trustees, pursuant to Sec 5 of RA no. 7742, issued Board Resolution No. 1011, series of 1995, amending and modifying the rules and Regulations implementing RA No. 7742. As amended, sec 1 of Rule VII provides that for a company to be entitled to a waiver or suspension of Fund coverage, it must have a plan providing for both provident/retirement and housing benefit superior to those provided under the Pag-ibig Fund.

 

Petitioners filed with the responded an application for Waiver or Suspension of Fund Coverage because of its superior retirement plan and explaining that the 1995 Amendments to the Rules are invalid.

 

On March 18 1996, the President and CEO of HDMF disapproved the petitioner’s application on the ground that the requirement should be both a provident retirement fund and a housing plan is clear in the use of the phrase “and/or”, and that the Rules Implementing RA no. 7742 did not amend nor repeal Sec 19 of PD No. 1752 but merely implement the law. HDMF contends to exercise the rule-making power under sec 13 of PD No. 1752. It had option to use “and” only instead of “or” in the rules on waiver in order to effectively implement the Pag-IBIG Fund Law.

 

The Court of Appeals DISMISSED the petition on the ground that the coverage of employers and employees under Home Development Mutual Fund is MANDATORY in character as clearly worded in sec 4 of PD No. 1752 as amended by RA No 7742.

 

Issue:

Whether or not HDMF exceeded its delegated power.

 

Held:

The Board subsequently abolished that exemption through the 1996 Amendments, it repealed Sec 19 of PD No. 1962. Such amendment and subsequent repeal of Sec 19 are both invalid. The HDMF cannot exercise the rule-making power, issue a regulation not consistent with the law it seeks to apply.

 

The controversy leis in the legal signification of the words “and/or” and those are to be used interchangeably.

 

   Petition is GRANTED. The decision of CA is hereby reversed and set aside and the Home Dev’t Mutual Fund is directed to refund the petitioner all sums of money it collected from the latter.

 

Note:

PD 1742 (Section 19): Existing Provident/Housing Plans. An employer and/or employee-group who, at the time this Decree becomes effective have their own provident and/or employee- housing plans, may register with the Fund, for any of the following purposes:

(a) For annual certification of waiver or suspension from coverage or participation in the Fund, which shall be granted on the basis of verification that the waiver or suspension does not contravene any effective collective bargaining agreement and that the features of the plan or plans are superior to the Fund or continue to be so; or

(b) For integration with the Fund, either fully or partially.

 

Section 13. Rule-Making Power. The Board of Trustees is hereby authorized to make and change needful rules and regulations, which shall be published in accordance with law or at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, to provide for, but not limited to the : (decision to interpret and/or not covered)