Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SYLLABUS
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J : p
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, assailing the
Decision 1(1) and Order 2(2) of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 161,
in SCA Case No. 2318, which nullified Circular No. 2000-06-010 of the Department
of Energy (DOE).
A. LPG Refiller/Marketer
1st Offense - Fine of P5,000
2nd Offense - Fine of P10,000
3rd Offense - Recommend business closure
to the proper local government unit
B. Dealer
1st Offense - Fine of P3,000
2nd Offense - Fine of P7,000
3rd Offense - Recommend business closure to the
proper local government unit
C. LPG Retail Outlet
A. LPG Refiller/Marketer
A. LPG Refiller/Marketer
A. LPG Refiller/Marketer
A. LPG REFILLER/MARKETER
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 Third Release 5
2nd Offense - Fine of P4,000 for each cylinder
3rd Offense - Recommend business closure to the
proper local government unit
C. LPG RETAIL OUTLET
A. LPG Refiller/Marketer
Respondent LPG Refillers Association of the Philippines, Inc. asked the DOE
to set aside the Circular for being contrary to law. The DOE, however, denied the
request for lack of merit. AHCETa
Respondent then filed a petition for prohibition and annulment with prayer for
temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction before the trial
court.
After trial on the merits, the trial court nullified the Circular on the ground that
it introduced new offenses not included in the law. 6(6) The court intimated that the
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 Third Release 7
Circular, in providing penalties on a per cylinder basis for each violation, might
exceed the maximum penalty under the law. The decretal part of its Decision reads:
SO ORDERED. 7(7)
The trial court denied for lack of merit petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Hence this petition, raising the following issues:
II
III
IV
VI
To our mind, the issue raised by petitioner may be reduced to the sole issue of
whether the Regional Trial Court of Pasig erred in declaring the provisions of the
Circular null and void, and prohibiting the Circular's implementation.
Petitioner argues that the penalties for the acts and omissions enumerated in
the Circular are sanctioned by Sections 1 9(9) and 3-A 10(10) of B.P. Blg. 33 and
Section 23 11(11) of Republic Act No. 8479. 12(12) Petitioner adds that Sections 5(g)
13(13) and 21 14(14) of Republic Act No. 7638 15(15) also authorize the DOE to
impose the penalties provided in the Circular.
Respondent counters that the enabling laws, B.P. Blg. 33 and R.A. No. 8479,
do not expressly penalize the acts and omissions enumerated in the Circular. Neither
is the Circular supported by R.A. No. 7638, respondent claims, since the said law
does not pertain to LPG traders. Respondent maintains that the Circular is not in
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 Third Release 9
conformity with the law it seeks to implement.
For an administrative regulation, such as the Circular in this case, to have the
force of penal law, (1) the violation of the administrative regulation must be made a
crime by the delegating statute itself; and (2) the penalty for such violation must be
provided by the statute itself. 16(16)
The Circular satisfies the first requirement. B.P. Blg. 33, as amended,
criminalizes illegal trading, adulteration, underfilling, hoarding, and overpricing of
petroleum products. Under this general description of what constitutes criminal acts
involving petroleum products, the Circular merely lists the various modes by which
the said criminal acts may be perpetrated, namely: no price display board, no
weighing scale, no tare weight or incorrect tare weight markings, no authorized LPG
seal, no trade name, unbranded LPG cylinders, no serial number, no distinguishing
color, no embossed identifying markings on cylinder, underfilling LPG cylinders,
tampering LPG cylinders, and unauthorized decanting of LPG cylinders. These
specific acts and omissions are obviously within the contemplation of the law, which
seeks to curb the pernicious practices of some petroleum merchants.
As for the second requirement, we find that the Circular is in accord with the
law. Under B.P. Blg. 33, as amended, the monetary penalty for any person who
commits any of the acts aforestated is limited to a minimum of P20,000 and a
maximum of P50,000. Under the Circular, the maximum pecuniary penalty for retail
outlets is P20,000, 17(17) an amount within the range allowed by law. However, for
the refillers, marketers, and dealers, the Circular is silent as to any maximum
monetary penalty. This mere silence, nonetheless, does not amount to violation of the
aforesaid statutory maximum limit. Further, the mere fact that the Circular provides
penalties on a per cylinder basis does not in itself run counter to the law since all that
B.P. Blg. 33 prescribes are the minimum and the maximum limits of penalties.
Noteworthy, the enabling laws on which the Circular is based were specifically
intended to provide the DOE with increased administrative and penal measures with
which to effectively curtail rampant adulteration and shortselling, as well as other acts
involving petroleum products, which are inimical to public interest. To nullify the
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 Third Release 10
Circular in this case would be to render inutile government efforts to protect the
general consuming public against the nefarious practices of some unscrupulous LPG
traders.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 Third Release 11