Kua vs. Barbers

Section 16 of P.D. No. 564, which provides that any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the predecessor's term shall serve only the unexpired portion, applies to the PTA General Manager and not solely to the non-ex officio part-time members of the Board, because the term "any member" must be construed in light of Sections 17 to 21 of the same decree, which employ "member" in a generic sense without distinction among the DOT Secretary, the General Manager, or the part-time members.

The Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) was created under P.D. No. 564, as amended by P.D. No. 1400, with a Board of Directors composed of the DOT Secretary as ex officio chairman, the PTA General Manager as an ex officio member, and three non-ex officio part-time members. Sections 15 and 16 of P.D. No. 564 originally fixed only the terms of the part-time members—staggered at six, four, and two years for the initial appointees—and provided that a member appointed to fill a vacancy before the predecessor's term expired would serve only the unexpired portion. P.D. No. 1400 later added Section 23-A, fixing the General Manager's term at six years with hold-over privileges until a successor qualified. The dispute arose from competing claims to the office of PTA General Manager under these provisions.

The Philippine Tourism Authority operates under a Board of Directors whose composition and terms of office are governed by P.D. No. 564, as amended by P.D. No. 1400. The Board consists of the DOT Secretary as ex officio chairman, the PTA General Manager as an ex officio member, and three non-ex officio part-time members. Sections 15 and 16 of P.D. No. 564 originally fixed only the terms of the part-time members—staggered at six, four, and two years for the initial appointees—and provided that any member appointed to fill a vacancy before the predecessor's term expired would serve only the unexpired portion. P.D. No. 1400, which took effect on October 3, 1978, added Section 23-A, fixing the General Manager's term at six years unless sooner removed for cause, with a hold-over provision allowing the incumbent to serve until a successor had been appointed and qualified.

No permanent appointment to the position of PTA General Manager was made prior to April 6, 1990. Earlier designations—Col. Rodolfo Cacdac (August 20, 1974 to July 19, 1978), Eng'r. Bernardo Vergara (July 20, 1978 to April 6, 1986), and Ramon P. Binamira (April 7, 1986 to January 4, 1990)—were all acting or temporary. It was only on April 6, 1990 that President Aquino appointed Jose A. Capistrano, Jr. as permanent General Manager, whose six-year term was to end on April 5, 1996. Capistrano did not complete his term, leaving on July 31, 1992. President Ramos appointed Eduardo T. Joaquin on July 8, 1992, who served the unexpired portion of Capistrano's term ending April 5, 1996, and then held over until June 29, 1998 under Section 23-A's hold-over provision. On June 30, 1998, President Estrada appointed Angelito T. Banayo, whose six-year term—reckoned from April 6, 1996, the end of his predecessor's term—was to expire on April 5, 2002, pursuant to Section 15 of P.D. No. 564.

On November 7, 2000, while Banayo was still serving, petitioner Nixon T. Kua, then one of the three non-ex officio part-time members of the PTA Board, was appointed PTA General Manager, vice Angelito T. Banayo. Kua took his oath the same day. Because Banayo's term was to expire on April 5, 2002, and Kua was appointed to fill the vacancy before that expiration, the CA determined—relying on Section 16 of P.D. No. 564—that Kua served only the unexpired portion of Banayo's term, which ended on April 5, 2002. Kua continued to sit in a hold-over capacity under Section 23-A. On November 12, 2002, President Macapagal-Arroyo appointed respondent Robert Dean S. Barbers as General Manager/Chief Executive Officer of the PTA for a term of six years expiring on October 3, 2008, vice Nixon T. Kua. Barbers took his oath and assumed the position. Petitioner filed a petition for quo warranto before the Court of Appeals on December 2, 2002, contending that his term had not yet expired and that the position was not vacant when respondent was appointed.

• Fixed Term Under Section 23-A: Petitioner maintained that Section 23-A of P.D. No. 564 fixes the General Manager's term at six years without subjecting it to the rotational or vacancy-filling scheme in Sections 15 and 16, and that his term should therefore commence from his appointment on November 7, 2000 and expire on November 7, 2006.
• Sections 15 and 16 Apply Only to Part-Time Members: Petitioner argued that Sections 15 and 16 of P.D. No. 564 govern exclusively the three non-ex officio part-time members of the PTA Board, as these provisions were enacted before the General Manager had a fixed term, and should be interpreted separately and distinctly from Section 23-A.
• Inapplicability of Rotational Scheme: Petitioner contended that the rotational scheme of appointments laid down in Republic vs. Imperial and Gaminde vs. Commission on Audit should not apply to the PTA General Manager, as the PTA is not a constitutional body whose independence requires staggered terms, and that Binamira vs. Garrucho—which also involved the PTA General Manager's office—never invoked the rotational scheme.
• Distinction from DOT Secretary Unsupported: Petitioner asserted that since both the DOT Secretary and the General Manager are ex officio members of the PTA Board, the Court should not distinguish between them in applying Sections 15 and 16, invoking the rule of noscitur a sociis to confine Section 16 to the part-time members.
• Reliance on DOJ Opinion: Petitioner cited a DOJ Opinion (No. 18, Series of 2001) which held that the rotational system in Imperial and Gaminde did not apply to the Energy Regulatory Board because its enabling law lacked a provision for filling unexpired terms, arguing by analogy that Section 23-A likewise contains no such provision.

• Position Was Legally Vacant: Respondent countered that the position of PTA General Manager was legally vacant at the time of his appointment because petitioner's term had already expired, the latter having been appointed only for the unexpired portion of his predecessor's term.
• Term Reckoned from First Permanent Appointment: Respondent argued that while Section 23-A fixes the term duration at six years, it is silent on the term's commencement and termination; hence, the term should be reckoned from the date of the first permanent appointment, with subsequent appointees serving within the established cycle.
• Meaning of "Vice" in Appointment: Respondent asserted that the wording of petitioner's appointment—"vice Angelito T. Banayo"—indicated that petitioner was appointed to complete the remaining portion of Banayo's term, as "vice" means "in lieu of," "instead of," and "in place of."
• Section 16 Applies to General Manager as a Board Member: Respondent maintained that Section 16 of P.D. No. 564 applies to the General Manager because, after P.D. No. 1400 fixed the General Manager's term at six years, the General Manager became a "member" of the Board with a fixed term, bringing him within the scope of the vacancy-filling provision.

• Applicability of Section 16: Whether Section 16 of P.D. No. 564, which provides that a member appointed to fill a vacancy before the predecessor's term expires shall serve only the unexpired portion, applies to the PTA General Manager such that petitioner's term expired on April 5, 2002 and not on November 7, 2006.
• Rotational Scheme: Whether the rotational scheme of appointments laid down in Republic vs. Imperial and Gaminde vs. Commission on Audit should apply to the case of petitioner in determining his term of office.

• Applicability of Section 16: Yes. Section 16 of P.D. No. 564 applies to the PTA General Manager because the term "any member" therein must be construed in light of Sections 17 to 21, which use "member" in a generic sense covering all board members, including the General Manager. Petitioner's term expired on April 5, 2002.
• Rotational Scheme: Not necessary to resolve. The Court found no necessity to dwell on the rotational scheme in Imperial and Gaminde to sustain the CA's ruling, as the proper construction of Section 16 in relation to Sections 17 to 21 was sufficient to dispose of the case.

• Applicability of Section 16: The Court applied the principle that an amendatory law must be read in conjunction with the original statute as if the amendment had always been part of it, citing Estrada vs. Caseda. P.D. No. 1400's addition of Section 23-A was therefore to be considered part and parcel of P.D. No. 564. The Court then examined Sections 17 to 21 of P.D. No. 564—provisions left unchanged by P.D. No. 1400—and found that they speak of "member" in a generic sense, making no particular allusion to the DOT Secretary, the General Manager, or the part-time members. Because Section 16 is found in the same decree and uses the phrase "any member," it must be construed in light of the company of words surrounding it. Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the meaning of an ambiguous phrase may be clarified by reference to associated words. Since Sections 17 to 21 apply to all board members without distinction, "any member" in Section 16 must include the General Manager. The Court further noted that a statute must be construed to harmonize and give effect to all its provisions. Because petitioner was appointed on November 7, 2000, before Banayo's term expired on April 5, 2002, he served only the unexpired portion of that term under Section 16. The position became vacant on April 6, 2002, and petitioner's continued service was merely in a hold-over capacity under Section 23-A. Respondent's appointment on November 12, 2002 was therefore valid, though his term was corrected to end on April 5, 2008, not October 3, 2008 as stated in his appointment.
• Rotational Scheme: The Court found it unnecessary to further dwell on the rulings in Imperial and Gaminde, which deal with the rotational scheme of appointment, because the proper construction of Section 16 of P.D. No. 564 in relation to Sections 17 to 21 was sufficient to sustain the CA's ruling. The Court thus declined to rule definitively on whether the rotational scheme applies to the PTA General Manager, leaving the issue effectively moot in light of the statutory construction analysis.

• Construction of Amended Statutes — An amended act is ordinarily construed as if the original statute had been repealed and a new and independent act in the amended form adopted in its stead. The amendment becomes part of the original statute as if it had always been contained therein. Portions of the original act left unchanged by the amendment continue in force with the same meaning and effect they had before. The Court applied this principle to hold that Section 23-A, added by P.D. No. 1400, must be read together with the unchanged provisions of P.D. No. 564 as if all had been enacted at the same time.
• Noscitur a Sociis — Where a particular word or phrase is ambiguous or susceptible of various meanings, its meaning may be made clear and specific by considering the company of words in which it is found or with which it is associated. The Court used this doctrine to construe "any member" in Section 16 of P.D. No. 564 by reference to the generic use of "member" in Sections 17 to 21, concluding that the phrase includes the General Manager and not just the part-time members.
• Harmonious Construction of Statutes — A statute must be so construed as to harmonize and give effect to all its provisions whenever possible. Every meaning to be given to each word or phrase must be ascertained from the context of the body of the statute. The Court relied on this principle to read Sections 15, 16, and 23-A of P.D. No. 564 together rather than in isolation.

• "An amended act is ordinarily to be construed as if the original statute had been repealed, and a new and independent act in the amended form had been adopted in its stead; or, as frequently stated by the courts, so far as regards any action after the adoption of the amendment, [it is] as if the statute had been originally enacted in its amended form." — This passage, quoted from Estrada vs. Caseda, articulates the foundational principle for reading P.D. No. 1400's amendments together with the original P.D. No. 564, establishing that Section 23-A must be treated as if it had always been part of the original decree.
• "Upon analysis of the afore-quoted sections, specifically of the emphasized words and phrases, one obvious fact is manifest: that Sections 17 to 21 of P.D. No. 564 speak of 'member/s' in a generic sense; no particular allusion whatsoever is made on the DOT Secretary, the General Manager or the three part-time members of the PTA Board." — This is the analytical core of the decision, establishing that the generic use of "member" in Sections 17 to 21 compels the conclusion that "any member" in Section 16 includes the General Manager.
• "To conclude, Section 23-A, as well as all other amendments made by P.D. No. 1400, should be read in connection with the provisions of P.D. No. 564 as if all had been enacted at the same time in the said decree, and, as far as possible, effect should be given to them all in furtherance of the general design of the statute." — This passage synthesizes the Court's statutory construction methodology, directing that all provisions of the original and amendatory decrees be read together and given effect.

• Estrada vs. Caseda, 84 Phil. 791 (1949) — Followed. The Court relied on this case for the principle that an amended statute should be construed as if originally enacted in its amended form, with the amendment becoming part of the original law.
• Republic vs. Imperial, 96 Phil. 770 (1955) — Cited but found unnecessary to apply. The CA had relied on this case for the rotational scheme of appointments, but the Supreme Court found the statutory construction of Section 16 sufficient to dispose of the case without invoking the rotational scheme.
• Gaminde vs. Commission on Audit, 401 Phil. 77 (2000) — Cited but found unnecessary to apply. Like Imperial, this case was cited for the rotational scheme but the Court declined to rest its ruling on it.
• Binamira vs. Garrucho, G.R. No. 92008, July 30, 1990, 188 SCRA 154 — Distinguished. Petitioner invoked it to argue that the rotational scheme was never applied to the PTA General Manager, but the Court found this case irrelevant to the statutory construction issue it resolved.
• Uy vs. Sandiganbayan, 407 Phil. 154 (2001) — Followed for the principle that a statute must be construed to harmonize all its provisions and that the legislature is presumed to know the meaning of words it employs.

• Section 15, P.D. No. 564 (Revised Charter of the Philippine Tourism Authority) — Fixes the term of office of the part-time members of the Board at six years, with staggered initial terms of six, four, and two years, and provides that a successor to a member whose term has expired shall be appointed for a full six-year term from the date of expiration of the predecessor's term. The Court applied this provision to establish the cycle of terms for the General Manager, reckoning from the first permanent appointment on April 6, 1990.
• Section 16, P.D. No. 564 — Provides that any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the predecessor's term shall serve only the unexpired portion. The Court held this provision applicable to the PTA General Manager, making it the decisive provision for determining that petitioner's term expired on April 5, 2002.
• Section 23-A, P.D. No. 564 (added by P.D. No. 1400) — Fixes the General Manager's term at six years unless sooner removed for cause, with a hold-over provision allowing the incumbent to serve until a successor has been appointed and qualified. The Court read this provision in conjunction with Sections 15 and 16, holding that the six-year term is subject to the vacancy-filling rule in Section 16.
• Sections 17 to 21, P.D. No. 564 — Govern per diems, quorum, withdrawal from meetings, removal for cause, and meetings of the Board, respectively. The Court analyzed these provisions to demonstrate that the term "member" is used generically throughout, supporting the conclusion that "any member" in Section 16 includes the General Manager.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno (Chairperson), Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Associate Justice Renato C. Corona, and Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro concurred.