Mecano v. COA, GR No. 103982 11 December 1992, Campos, Jr., Jr., J.
Facts
Antonio Mecano, petitioner, a Director II of the National Bureau of Investigation, filed a petition for certoriari to nullify the decision of Commission of Audit (COA) in the th Indorsement denying denying him of reim!u reim!urse rsemen mentt anchore anchored d on the provision provisionss of "ection "ection #$$ of the %evised %evised Admini Administr strati ative ve Code Code (%AC) (%AC) in the amount amount of &hp ',*+ ',*+ -arli -arlier er,, the petiti petitioner oner .as hospitali/ed !ecause of cholecystitis and incurred the a!ovementioned amount 0nder "ec #$$ of %AC, %AC, he is entit entitle led d to allo allo.a .ance ncess in case case of in1u in1ury ry,, sic2 sic2nes ness, s, deat death h incu incurr rred ed in the the performance of duty 3ence, the petitioner re4uested reim!ursement for his e5penses to NBI Director Alfredo Alfredo 6im for.arding the re4uest to the "ecretary " ecretary of 7ustice 8he re4uest .as .a s returned due to the comments of the COA Chairman stating that the %AC !eing relied upon .as already repealed !y the Administrative Code of +$ 8he petitioner resu!mitted the re4uest asserting that the Administrative Code did not operate to repeal or a!rogate in its entirety the %AC, includ including ing "ectio "ection n #$$ Direct Director or 6im transm transmitt itted ed the re4ues re4uestt to the 7ustic 7usticee "ecret "ecretary ary .ho recommended the payment to the COA Chairman 8he COA Chairman again denied the re4uest asserting the same reason and furthered that "ection #$$ .as not restated nor re9enacted in the Administrative Code of +$ According to the COA Chairman, the claim may !e filed .ith the -mploy -mployees ees:: Compens Compensati ation on Commis Commissio sion, n, conside considerin ring g that that the illne illness ss of Direct Director or Mecano Mecano occurred after the effectivity of the Administrative Code of +$ -ventually, the re4uest .as again returned to Director 6im .ith an advice of elevating the matter in the "upreme Court if he so desires !ss"e
;hether or not the Administrative Code of +$ repealed or a!rogated "ection #$$ of the %evised Administrative Administrative Code of +$+ R"#$n%
No 8he legislature leg islature did not intend, in enacting the ne. Code, to repeal "ec #$$ of the old code 8he ne. Code did not e5pressly repeal the old as the ne. Code fails to identify or designate the act to !e repealed %epeal !y implication implication proceeds on the premise premise that .here a statute statute of later date clearly reveals an intention on the part of the legislature to a!rogate a prior act on the su!1ect, that intention must !e given effect 3ence, !efore there can !e a repeal, there must !e a clear sho.ing on the part of the la.ma2er that the intent in enacting the ne. la. .as to a!rogate the old one 8he intention to repeal must !e clear and manifest< other.ise, at least, as a general rule, the later act is to !e construed as a continuation of, and not a su!stitute for, the first act and .ill continue so far as the t.o acts are the same from the time of the first enactment It is a .ell9settled rule of statutory construction that repeals of statutes !y implication are not favored 8he presumption is against inconsistency and repugnancy for the legislature is presumed to 2no. the e5isting la.s
on the su!1ect and not to have enacted inconsistent or conflicting statutes 8he t.o Codes should !e read in pari materia
