THE SAME SECTION IN THE OLD LAW NOT BEING RESTATED NOR RE-ENACTED IN THE NEW

LAW WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO IMPLIED REPEAL

Repeals by implication are not favored and will not be decreed unless it is manifest that the legislature
so intended. As laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation with full knowledge of all existing
ones on the subject, it is but reasonable to conclude that in passing a statute it was not intended to
interfere with or abrogate any former law relating to some matter, unless the repugnancy between the
two is not only irreconcilable, but also clear and convincing, and flowing necessarily from the language
used, unless the later act fully embraces the subject matter of the earlier, or unless the reason for the
earlier act is beyond peradventure renewed (Mecano v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 103982,
December 11, 1992).

x—————x

THE SAME SECTION IN THE OLD LAW NOT BEING RESTATED NOR RE-ENACTED IN THE NEW
LAW WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO IMPLIED REPEAL

Mecano v. Commission on Audit

G.R. No. 103982, December 11, 1992
Campos, Jr., J.

FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari filed by Antonio Mecano (Mecano) seeking to nullify the decision of the
Commission on Audit (COA) denying his claim for reimbursement under Section 699 of the Revised
Administrative Code (RAC), as amended.

Mecano is a Director II on the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). He was hospitalized for
cholecystitis. He requested reimbursement for his medical expenses on the ground that he is entitled
to
the benefits under Section 699 of the RAC. The then Undersecretary of Justice Silvestre Bello III
opined that the RAC being relied upon was repealed by the Administrative Code of 1987 (AC of 1987).
Mecano then re-submitted his claim with the copy of Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 of then Secretary of
Justice Franklin Drilon stating that "the issuance of the Administrative Code did not operate to repeal
or abrogate in its entirety the Revised Administrative Code, including the particular Section 699 of the
latter."

Upon indorsement, COA denied Mecano’s claim on the ground that Section 699 of the RAC has been
repealed by the AC, solely for the reason that the same section was not restated nor re-enacted in the
AC.

ISSUE:
Did the Administrative Code of 1987 repeal or abrogate Section 699 of the Revised Administrative
Code?

HELD:
No, the Administrative Code of 1987 did not repeal or abrogated Section 699 of the Revised
Administrative Code.

A declaration in a statute, usually in its repealing clause, that a particular and specific law, identified by
its number or title, is repealed is an express repeal; all others are implied repeals. Repeal by
implication proceeds on the premise that where a statute of later date clearly reveals an intention on
the part of the legislature to abrogate a prior act on the subject, that intention must be given effect. The
intention to repeal must be clear and manifest; otherwise, at least, as a general rule, the later act is to
be construed as a continuation of, and not a substitute for, the first act and will continue so far as the
two acts are the same from the time of the first enactment. There are two categories of repeal by
implication. The first is where provisions in the two acts on the same subject matter are in an
irreconcilable conflict, the later act to the extent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the
earlier one. The second is if the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly
intended as a substitute, it will operate to repeal the earlier law.
Here, as to the first category, comparing the two Codes, it is apparent that the new Code does not
cover nor attempt to cover the entire subject matter of the old Code. There are several matters treated
in the old Code which are not found in the new Code, such as claims for sickness benefits under
Section 699, among others. As to the second category, according to Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 of the
Secretary of Justice, what appears clear is the intent to cover only those aspects of government that
pertain to administration, organization and procedure.

Repeals of statutes by implication are not favored. The presumption is against inconsistency and
repugnancy for the legislature is presumed to know the existing laws on the subject and not to have
enacted inconsistent or conflicting statutes. Thus, Section 699 of the RAC not being repealed, COA
was ordered to give due course to Mecano’s claim for benefits.