Mecano vs. Commission on Audit

A prior statute is not repealed by a later general codification unless the later law expressly repeals it or covers the entire subject matter with the clear intent to substitute, and an irreconcilable conflict exists. The Administrative Code of 1987, with its general repealing clause, did not impliedly repeal Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, as the 1987 Code did not restate the provision on sickness benefits but also did not cover the same subject matter in a conflicting manner.

Antonio A. Mecano, a Director II of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), was hospitalized for cholecystitis from March 26 to April 7, 1990. He filed a claim for reimbursement of P40,831.00 in medical and hospitalization expenses with the NBI, invoking Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, which allows department heads to authorize payment for sickness "caused by or connected directly with the performance of some act in the line of duty." The claim was endorsed favorably by the NBI Director and the Department of Justice Committee on Physical Examination. However, the COA denied the claim, contending that the entire RAC of 1917 was repealed by the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292).

• Nature of the Claim: Petitioner Antonio A. Mecano, an NBI Director II, incurred medical expenses for cholecystitis, which he alleged was service-connected.
• Legal Basis: He sought reimbursement under Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, as amended, which authorizes payment for sickness directly connected to duty.
• Administrative Processing: The NBI Director and the Department of Justice committee recommended approval.
• COA's Denial: The Commission on Audit denied the claim, asserting that the entire Revised Administrative Code of 1917 was repealed by the Administrative Code of 1987 because Section 699 was not re-enacted in the new code.
• Justice Secretary's Opinion: The Secretary of Justice issued Opinion No. 73, S. 1991, stating the 1987 Code did not repeal the RAC in its entirety, including Section 699.
• Alternative Remedy Suggested: COA suggested filing a claim with the Employees' Compensation Commission under P.D. 626.

• Continued Validity of Section 699: Petitioner anchored his claim on Section 699 of the RAC and the supporting Opinion of the Secretary of Justice, maintaining that the provision remained in force.
• Non-Bar to Other Claims: Petitioner argued that even if he could file with the Employees' Compensation Commission, it would not bar a claim under Section 699.

• Repeal by Codification: Respondent COA maintained that the Administrative Code of 1987, intended as a "unified document," repealed the entire Revised Administrative Code of 1917, including Section 699, which was not restated.
• Inapplicability of Justice Opinion: COA questioned the applicability of the Secretary of Justice's opinion, asserting its own authority in implementing the law.
• Exclusivity of Employees' Compensation: COA contended that P.D. 626 (Employees' Compensation Program) adequately covered service-connected sickness, making simultaneous recovery under both laws unfair to the government.

• Repeal by Implication: Whether the Administrative Code of 1987 repealed Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 by implication.
• Concurrent Benefits: Whether recovery of benefits under Section 699 of the RAC is barred by the Employees' Compensation Program under P.D. 626.

• Repeal by Implication: The Administrative Code of 1987 did not repeal Section 699 of the RAC. The 1987 Code's repealing clause (Section 27, Book VII) is a general provision, not an express repeal. No implied repeal occurred because: (1) the 1987 Code does not cover the entire subject matter of the 1917 Code (e.g., it omits provisions on notaries public, leave law, public bonding, and sickness benefits under Sec. 699); and (2) no irreconcilable conflict exists between the codes on this specific matter, as the 1987 Code is silent on the subject. The presumption against implied repeals applies.
• Concurrent Benefits: Recovery under Section 699 is not barred by the Employees' Compensation Program. Article 173, Chapter II, Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. 1921, expressly provides that compensation under the Labor Code does not bar recovery of benefits under Section 699 of the RAC.

• Presumption Against Implied Repeal — Repeals of statutes by implication are not favored. The legislature is presumed to know existing laws and not to enact conflicting statutes. A later law will not be deemed to repeal an earlier one unless the repugnancy is clear, irreconcilable, and flows necessarily from the language used, or unless the later law fully embraces the subject matter of the earlier one with the clear intent to substitute.
• Two Categories of Implied Repeal — (1) Where provisions on the same subject matter are in irreconcilable conflict, the later act repeals the earlier to the extent of the conflict; (2) Where the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it repeals the earlier law entirely.

• "The failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal any existing law, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exist in the terms of the new and old laws." — This clarifies the effect of a general repealing clause.
• "Repeals by implication are not favored, and will not be decreed unless it is manifest that the legislature so intended... every effort must be used to make all acts stand." — This reinforces the strong presumption against implied repeals.

• Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association, Inc. v. Feliciano, 13 SCRA 377 (1965) — Cited for the principle that a general repealing clause is not an express repeal.
• Maceda v. Macaraig, 197 SCRA 771 (1991) — Cited for the rule that the intention to repeal must be clear and manifest.
• Villegas v. Subido, 41 SCRA 190 (1971) — Cited to define irreconcilable inconsistency as a basis for implied repeal.
• Smith, Bell & Co. v. Estate of Maronilla, 41 Phil. 557 (1916) — Cited for the detailed articulation of the presumption against implied repeals.

• Section 699, Revised Administrative Code of 1917 (as amended by R.A. No. 1232) — Provides for allowances and payment of medical expenses for sickness caused by or connected directly with the performance of duty. The Court held this provision was not repealed.
• Section 27, Book VII, Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292) — The general repealing clause stating inconsistent laws are repealed. The Court held this did not expressly or impliedly repeal Section 699 of the RAC.
• Article 173, Chapter II, Title II, Book IV, Labor Code (as amended by P.D. 1921) — States that compensation under the Labor Code does not bar recovery of benefits under Section 699 of the RAC. The Court relied on this to reject the COA's argument on exclusivity.

Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, Justices Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr. (concurred in the result), Florentino P. Feliciano, Isagani A. Cruz, Teodoro R. Padilla, Abdulwahid A. Bidin, Carolina C. Griño-Aquino, Oscar M. Herrera, Davide, Jr., Jose C. Romero, Jr., Jose C. Campos, Jr., and Santiago M. Kapunan.

N/A — The decision was unanimous, with one Justice concurring only in the result.