*

G.R. No. 131082. June 19, 2000.

ROMULO, MABANTA, BUENAVENTURA, SAYOC & DE

LOS ANGELES, petitioner, vs. HOME DEVELOPMENT
MUTUAL FUND, respondent.

Pag-IBIG Fund; Section 1 of Rule VII of the Amendments to

the Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 7742,
and Home Development Mutual Fund Circular No. 124-B
prescribing the Revised Guidelines and Procedure for Filing
Application for Waiver or Suspension of Fund Coverage under
Presidential Decree No. 1752, as amended by Republic Act No.
7742, are null and void insofar as they require that an employer
should have both a provident/retirement plan and a housing plan
superior to the benefits offered by the Fund in order to qualify for
waiver or suspension of the Fund coverage.—The issue of the
validity of the 1995 Amendments to the Rules and Regulations
Implementing R.A. No. 7742, specifically Section I, Rule VII on
Waiver and Suspension, has been squarely resolved in the
relatively recent case of China Banking Corp. v. The Members of
the Board of Trustees of the HDMF. We held in that case that
Section 1 of Rule VII of the Amendments to the Rules and
Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 7742, and HDMF Circular
No. 124-B prescribing the Revised Guidelines and Procedure for
Filing Application for Waiver or Suspension of Fund Coverage
under P.D. No. 1752, as amended by R.A. No. 7742, are null and
void insofar as they require that an employer should have both a
provident/retirement plan and a housing plan superior to the
benefits offered by the Fund in order to qualify for waiver or
suspension of the Fund coverage.
Statutory Construction; It is ordinarily held that the intention
of the legislature in using the term “and/or” is that the word “and”
and the word “or” are to be used interchangeably.—In arriving at
said conclusion, we ruled: The controversy lies in the legal
signification of the words “and/or.” In the instant case, the legal
meaning of the words “and/or” should be taken in its ordinary
signification, i.e., “either and or; e.g. butter and/or eggs means
butter and eggs or butter or eggs. “The term ‘and/or’ means that
the effect shall be given to both the conjunctive “and” and the
disjunctive “or”; or that

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

778

778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De los Angeles vs.

Home Development Mutual Fund

one word or the other may be taken accordingly as one or the

other will best effectuate the purpose intended by the legislature
as gathered from the whole statute. The term is used to avoid a
construction which by the use of the disjunctive “or” alone will
exclude the combination of several of the alternatives or by the
use of the conjunctive “and” will exclude the efficacy of any one of
the alternatives standing alone.” It is accordingly ordinarily held
that the intention of the legislature in using the term “and/or” is
that the word “and” and the word “or” are to be used
interchangeably.
Administrative Law; It is well-settled that rules and
regulations, which are the product of a delegated power to create
new and additional legal provisions that have the effect of law,
should be within the scope of the statutory authority granted by the
legislature to the administrative agency.—It is without doubt that
the HDMF Board has rule-making power as provided in Section 5
of R.A. No. 7742 and Section 13 of P.D. No. 1752. However, it is
well-settled that rules and regulations, which are the product of a
delegated power to create new and additional legal provisions that
have the effect of law, should be within the scope of the statutory
authority granted by the legislature to the administrative agency.
It is required that the regulation be germane to the objects and
purposes of the law, and be not in contradiction to, but in
conformity with, the standards prescribed by law.
Same; Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF); The Home
Development Mutual Fund cannot, in the exercise of its rule-
making power, issue a regulation not consistent with the law it
seeks to apply—administrative issuances must not override,
supplant or modify the law, but must remain consistent with the
law they intend to carry out.—In the present case, when the Board
of Trustees of the HDMF required in Section 1, Rule VII of the
1995 Amendments to the Rules and Regulations Implementing
R.A. No. 7742 that employers should have both
provident/retirement and housing benefits for all its employees in
order to qualify for exemption from the Fund, it effectively
amended Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752. And when the Board
subsequently abolished that exemption through the 1996
Amendments, it repealed Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752. Such
amendment and subsequent repeal of Section 19 are both invalid,
as they are not within the delegated power of the Board. The
HDMF cannot, in the exercise of its rule-making power, issue a
regulation not consistent with the law it seeks to apply. Indeed,
administrative issuances must not

779

VOL. 333, JUNE 19, 2000 779

Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De los Angeles vs.

Home Development Mutual Fund

override, supplant or modify the law, but must remain consistent

with the law they intend to carry out. Only Congress can repeal or
amend the law.
Same; Same; A departmental zeal may not be permitted to
outrun the authority conferred by the statute.—While it may be
conceded that the requirement of having both plans to qualify for
an exemption, as well as the abolition of the exemption, would
enhance the interest of the working group and further strengthen
the Home Development Mutual Fund in its pursuit of promoting
public welfare through ample social services as mandated by the
Constitution, we are of the opinion that the basic law should
prevail. A department zeal may not be permitted to outrun the
authority conferred by the statute.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

          Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & Delos
Angeles for and in its own behalf.
     Cristobal A. Paralejas for respondent.

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:

Once again, this Court is confronted with the issue of the

validity of the Amendments to the Rules and Regulations
Implementing Republic Act No. 7742, which require the
existence of a plan providing for both provident/retirement
and housing benefits for exemption from the Pag-IBIG
Fund coverage under Presidential Decree No. 1752, as
amended.
1
Pursuant to Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752, as amended by
R.A. No. 7742, petitioner Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura,
_______________

1 It reads:
SEC. 19. Existing Provident/Housing Plan—An employer and/or
employee-group who, at the time this Decree becomes effective have their
own provident and/or employee-housing

780

780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De los Angeles
vs. Home Development Mutual Fund

Sayoc and De Los Angeles (hereafter PETITIONER), a law

firm, was exempted for the period 1 January to 31
December 1995 from the Pag-IBIG Fund coverage by
respondent Home Development Mutual Fund (hereafter
2
HDMF) because of a superior retirement plan.
On 1 September 1995, the HDMF Board of Trustees,
pursuant to Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7742, issued
Board Resolution No. 1011, Series of 1995, amending and
modifying the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A.
No. 7742. As amended, Section 1 of Rule VII provides that
for a company to be entitled to a waiver or suspension of
3
Fund coverage, it must have a plan providing for both
provident/retirement and housing benefits superior to
those provided under the PagIBIG Fund.
On 16 November 1995, PETITIONER filed with the
respondent an application for Waiver or Suspension of
4
Fund Coverage because of its superior retirement plan. In
support of said application, PETITIONER submitted to the
HDMF a

_______________

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.

The establishment of a separate provident and/or housing plan after

the effectivity of this Decree shall not be a ground for waiver of coverage
in the Fund; nor shall such coverage bar any employer and/or employee-
group from establishing separate provident and/or housing plans.
2 Rollo, 43.
3 Id., 187.
4 Id., 44.

781

VOL. 333, JUNE 19, 2000 781

Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De los Angeles
vs. Home Development Mutual Fund

letter explaining that the 1995 Amendments to the Rules

5
are invalid.
In a letter dated 18 March 1996, the President and Chief
Executive Officer of HDMF disapproved PETITIONER’S
application on the ground that the requirement that there
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 R.A. No. 7742 did not amend nor
repeal Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752 but merely implement
6
the law.
7
PETITIONER’S appeal with the HDMF Board of
Trustees was denied for having been rendered moot and
academic by Board Resolution No. 1208, Series of 1996,
removing the availment of waiver of the mandatory
coverage of the PagIBIG Fund, except for distressed
8
employers.
 On 31 March 1997, PETITIONER filed a petition for
9
review before the Court of Appeals. On motion by HDMF,
10
the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the ground
that the coverage of employers and employees under the
Home Development Mutual Fund is mandatory in
character as clearly worded in Section 4 of P.D. No. 1752,
as amended by R.A. No. 7742. There is no allegation that
petitioner is a distressed employer to warrant its
exemption from the Fund coverage. As to the amendments
to the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 7742,
the same are valid. Under P.D. No. 1752 and R.A. No. 7742
the Board of Trustees of the HDMF is authorized to
promulgate rules and regulations, as well as amendments
thereto, concerning the extension, waiver or suspension of
coverage under the Pag-IBIG Fund. And the publication
requirement was amply met, since the questioned
amendments were published in the 21 October 1995 issue
of

_______________

5 Id., 45-51
6 Id., 52-54.
7 Id., 55-60.
8 Rollo, 61.
9 Id., 30-42.
10 Id., 86-91. Per Tayao-Jaguros, L. J., with Martinez, A. and Brawner,
R. JJ., concurring.

782

782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De los Angeles
vs. Home Development Mutual Fund

the Philippine Star, which is a newspaper of general

circulation.
11
PETITIONER’S motion for reconsideration was
12
denied. Hence, on 6 November 1997, PETITIONER filed a
petition before this Court assailing the 1995 and the 1996
Amendments to the Rules and Regulations Implementing
Republic Act No. 7742 for being contrary to law. In support
thereof, PETITIONER contends that the subject 1995
Amendments issued by HDMF are inconsistent with the
enabling law, P.D. No. 1752, as amended by R.A. No. 7742,
which merely requires as a pre-condition for exemption
from coverage the existence of either a superior
provident/retirement plan or a superior housing plan, and
not the concurrence of both plans. Hence, considering that
PETITIONER has a provident plan superior to that offered
by the HDMF, it is entitled to exemption from the coverage
in accordance with Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752. The 1996
Amendment are also void insofar as they abolished the
exemption granted by Section 19 of P.D. 1752, as amended.
The repeal of such exemption involves the exercise of
legislative power, which cannot be delegated to HMDF.
PETITIONER also cites Section 9 (1), Chapter 2, Book
VII of the Administrative Code of 1987, which provides:

SEC. 9. Public Participation—(1) If not otherwise required by law,

an agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices
of proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to
submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule.

Since the Amendments to the Rules and Regulations

Implementing Republic Act No. 7742 involve an imposition
of an additional burden, a public hearing should have first
been conducted to give chance to the employers, like
PETITIONER, to be heard before the HDMF adopted the
said Amendments. Absent such public hearing, the
amendments should be voided.

_______________

11 Id., 112-126.
 12 Id., 140.

783

VOL. 333, JUNE 19, 2000 783

Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De los Angeles
vs. Home Development Mutual Fund

Finally, PETITIONER contends that HDMF did not comply

with Section 3, Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative
Code of 1987, which provides that “[e]very agency shall file
with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (3)
certified copies of every rule adopted by it.”
On the other hand, the HDMF contends that in
promulgating the amendments to the rules and regulations
which require the existence of a plan providing for both
provident and housing benefits for exemption from the
Fund Coverage, the respondent Board was merely
exercising its rule-making power under Section 13 of P.D.
No. 1752. It had the option to use “and” only instead of “or”
in the rules on waiver in order to effectively implement the
Pag-IBIG Fund Law. By choosing “and,” the Board has
clarified the confusion brought about by the use of “and/or”
in Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752, as amended.
As to the public hearing, HDMF maintains that as can
be clearly deduced from Section 9(1), Chapter 2, book VII of
the Revised Administrative Code of 1987, public hearing is
required only when the law so provides, and if not, only if
the same is practicable. It follows that public hearing is
only optional or discretionary on the part of the agency
concerned, except when the same is required by law. P.D.
No. 1752 does not require that public hearing be first
conducted before the rules and regulations implementing it
would become valid and effective. What it requires is the
publication of said rules and regulations at least once in a
newspaper of general circulation. Having published said
1995 and 1996 Amendments through the Philippine Star
13 14
on 21 October 1995 and 15 November 1996, respectively,
HDMF has complied with the publication requirement.
Finally, HDMF claims that as early as 18 October 1996,
it had already filed certified true copies of the Amendments
to the Rules and Regulations with the University of the
Philippines Law Center. This fact is evidenced by certified
true

_______________

13 Rollo, 187.
14 Id., 188.

784

784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De los Angeles
vs. Home Development Mutual Fund

copies of the Certification from the Office of the National

15
Administrative Register of the U.P. Law Center.
We find for the PETITIONER.
The issue of the validity of the 1995 Amendments to the
Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 7742,
specifically Section I, Rule VII on Waiver and Suspension,
has been squarely resolved in the relatively recent case of
China Banking Corp. v. The Members of the Board of
16
Trustees of the HDMF. We held in that case that Section 1
of Rule VII of the Amendments to the Rules and
Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 7742, and HDMF
Circular No. 124-B prescribing the Revised Guidelines and
Procedure for Filing Application for Waiver or Suspension
of Fund Coverage under P.D. No. 1752, as amended by R.A.
No. 7742, are null and void insofar as they require that an
employer should have both a provident/retirement plan and
a housing plan superior to the benefits offered by the Fund
in order to qualify for waiver or suspension of the Fund
coverage. In arriving at said conclusion, we ruled:

The controversy lies in the legal signification of the words

“and/or.”
In the instant case, the legal meaning of the words “and/or”
should be taken in its ordinary signification, i.e., “either and or;
e.g. butter and/or eggs means butter and eggs or butter or eggs.

“The term ‘and/or’ means that the effect shall be given to both the
conjunctive “and” and the disjunctive “or”; or that one word or the other
may be taken accordingly as one or the other will best effectuate the
purpose intended by the legislature as gathered from the whole statute.
The term is used to avoid a construction which by the use of the
disjunctive “or” alone will exclude the combination of several of the
alternatives or by the use of the conjunctive “and” will exclude the
efficacy of any one of the alternatives standing alone.”

_______________

15 Id., 189.
16 G.R. No. 131787, 19 May 1999, 307 SCRA 443.

785

VOL. 333, JUNE 19, 2000 785

Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De los Angeles vs.
Home Development Mutual Fund

It is accordingly ordinarily held that the intention of the

legislature in using the term “and/or” is that the word “and” and
the word “or” are to be used interchangeably.
It. . . seems to us clear from the language of the enabling law
that Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752 intended that an employer with a
provident plan or an employee housing plan superior to that of
the fund may obtain exemption from coverage. If the law had
intended that the employee [sic] should have both a superior
provident plan and a housing plan in order to qualify for
exemption, it would have used the words “and” instead of
“and/or.” Notably, paragraph (a) of Section 19 requires for annual
certification of waiver or suspension, that the features of the plan
or plans are superior to the fund or continue to be so. The law
obviously contemplates that the existence of either plan is
considered as sufficient basis for the grant of an exemption;
needless to state, the concurrence of both plans is more than
sufficient. To require the existence of both plans would radically
impose a more stringent condition for waiver which was not
clearly envisioned by the basic law. By removing the disjunctive
word “or” in the implementing rules the respondent Board has
exceeded its authority.

It is without doubt that the HDMF Board has rule-making

17
power as provided in Section 5 of R.A. No. 7742 and
18
Section 13 of P.D. No. 1752. However, it is well-settled
that rules

_______________

17 SEC. 5. Promulgation of Rules and Regulations.—Within sixty (60)

days from the approval of this Act, the Board of Trustees of the Home
Development Mutual Fund shall promulgate the rules and regulations
necessary for the effective implementation of this Act.
18 SEC. 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 following matters:

...
(b) Extension of fund coverage to other working groups, and waiver or
suspension of coverage or its enforcement for reasons herein stated;
...

786

786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De los Angeles
vs. Home Development Mutual Fund

and regulations, which are the product of a delegated

power to create new and additional legal provisions that
have the effect of law, should be within the scope of the
statutory authority granted by the legislature to the
19
administrative agency. It is required that the regulation
be germane to the objects and purposes of the law, and be
not in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the
20
standards prescribed by law.
In the present case, when the Board of Trustees of the
HDMF required in Section 1, Rule VII of the 1995
Amendments to the Rules and Regulations Implementing
R.A. No. 7742 that employers should have both
provident/retirement and housing benefits for all its
employees in order to qualify for exemption from the Fund,
it effectively amended Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752. And
when the Board subsequently abolished that exemption
through the 1996 Amendments, it repealed Section 19 of
P.D. No. 1752. Such amendment and subsequent repeal of
Section 19 are both invalid, as they are not within the
delegated power of the Board. The HDMF cannot, in the
exercise of its rule-making power, issue a regulation not
consistent with the law it seeks to apply. Indeed,
administrative issuances must not override, supplant or
modify the law, but must remain consistent with the law
21
they intend to carry out. Only Congress can repeal or
amend the law.
While it may be conceded that the requirement of having
both plans to qualify for an exemption, as well as the
abolition of the exemption, would enhance the interest of
the working

_______________

(i) Other matters that, by express or implied provisions of this Act,

shall require implementation by appropriate policies, rules and
regulations.
19 Victorias Milling Co., Inc., v. Social Security Commission, 114 Phil.
555, 558 (1962), as cited in the case of China Banking Corp. v. The
Members of the Board of Trustees, supra note 16.
20 The Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc. v. Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration, 243 SCRA 666, 675 (1995).
21 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA
368, 372 (1994).

787

VOL. 333, JUNE 19, 2000 787

Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De los Angeles
vs. Home Development Mutual Fund

group and further strengthen the Home Development

Mutual Fund in its pursuit of promoting public welfare
through ample social services as mandated by the
Constitution, we are of the opinion that the basic law
should prevail. A department zeal may not be permitted to
22
outrun the authority conferred by the statute.
Considering the foregoing conclusions, it is unnecessary
to dwell on the other issues raised.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed
decision of 31 July 1997 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
No. SP-43668 and its Resolution of 15 October 1997 are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The disapproval by
the Home Development Mutual Fund of the application of
the petitioner for waiver or suspension of Fund coverage is
SET ASIDE, and the Home Development Mutual Fund is
hereby directed to refund to petitioner all sums of money it
collected from the latter.
SO ORDERED.

     Puno, Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

     Pardo, J., No part. Related to a party.
 Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and
set aside.

Notes.—If the governing or enabling statute is quite

detailed and specific to begin with, there would be very
little need (or occasion) for implementing administrative
regulations. It is, however, precisely the inability of
legislative bodies to anticipate all (or many) possible
detailed situations in respect of any relatively complex
subject matter, that makes subordinate, delegated rule-
making by administrative agencies so important and
unavoidable. All that may be reasonably demanded is a
showing that the delegated legislation con-

_______________

22 Radio Communications of the Philippines v. Santiago, 58 SCRA 493,

498 (1974).

788

788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

PGA Brotherhood Association vs. NLRC

sisting of administrative regulations are germane to the

general purposes projected by the governing or enabling
statute. (Rabor vs. Civil Service Commission, 244 SCRA
614 [1995])
It is well settled that the rules and regulations which
are the product of a delegated power to create new or
additional legal provisions that have the effect of law,
should be within the scope of the statutory authority
granted by the legislature to the administrative agency.
(China Banking Corporation vs. Members of the Board of
Trustees, Home Development Mutual Fund, 307 SCRA 443
[1999])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.