MANILA LETTER CARRIERS’ ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE AUDITOR GENERAL, RESPONDENT.

GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:

“Republic
Act No. 1631 mentions only letter-carriers as entitled to an allowance
of P1.00 a day. On the other hand, Republic Act No. 1800 provides for
daily ‘post allowance’ of P0.50 for both letter-carriers and special
delivery messengers in Manila. In accordance with the legal maxim of
‘inclusio unius exclusio alterius est,’ it is believed that under
Republic Act No. 1631 special delivery messengers are not entitled to
receive the allowance provided therein.

“As to the
letter-carriers, the daily allowance of P1.00 has been provided in
Republic Act No. 1631 in consideration of their daily heavy-work load
and the high cost of living in the City. The post allowance of P0.50
for them was included in the President’s 1958 Budget for the same
consideration in the absence of a special law granting a similar
allowance. It is not expressly provided and it has not been intended
that said allowance of P0.50 shall be granted in addition to any
similar allowance that might be authorized by special law. The
President’s Budget was submitted to the Congress on February 11, 1957.
Republic Act No. 1631 was approved by the Congress in the latter part
of April, 1957, and it does not provide that the allowance of P1.00
authorized therein is an additional allowance. Under the circumstances,
there being no clear indication that both amounts must be paid, this
Office believes that the letter-carriers should be paid only the
allowance of P1.00 provided in Republic Act No. 1631.”

Expressing his concurrence in the aforesaid indorsement of the Budget
Commissioner, the Auditor General denied petitioner’s claim. From that
denial, the petitioner brought the case to this Court thru the present
petition for review.

Republic Act No. 1631, on the basis of
which the denial of petitioner’s claim is justified, is an act
increasing to two hundred the number of letter carriers in the City of
Manila and granting them an allowance of P1.00 each per day. To carry
out its provisions, the sum of P90,000.00 or so much thereof as may be
necessary was appropriated in section 2 thereof, the last paragraph of
which also provides that “such sums as thereafter may be needed for the
same purpose shall be included in the ANNUAL GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS
ACT.” The Act, which originated in the House of Representatives, was
finally passed by Congress in the latter part of April, 1957 and made
effective June 20, 1957.

It is not here pretended that the
Act just referred to above has been superseded by the provision of Item
No. 563, section 1 of Republic Act No. 1800 on the theory that the
latter Act, being the latest expression of the legislative will, must
prevail and override the earlier. Indeed, repeal by implication is not
favored and while the General Appropriation Act, Republic Act No. 1800,
which is general in character, is the later enactment, Republic Act No.
1631 is a special legislation on the same subject matter. The only
question to be determined as raised by the parties is whether or not
the letter carriers in Manila are entitled to receive the P0.50 daily
post allowance authorized in Republic Act No. 1800 in addition to the
P1.00 allowance now being paid them under Republic Act No. 1631.

It will be observed that the provisions of the two laws herein involved
refer to the same subject or matter of allowance and it is not disputed
that the allowance granted in both mean the same thing. Both statutes
should, therefore, be made to harmonize and stand together, if that can
be done by any fair and reasonable interpretation. There is, however,
an apparent conflict in the amount of the allowance granted, and while
special delivery messengers are not granted daily allowance of P1.00
under Republic Act No. 1631, they are given P0.50 daily post allowance
under Republic Act No. 1800. Considering the circumstances surrounding
the passage of the two laws in question, we are constrained to hold
that their provisions relating to the allowance for letter carriers in
Manila were not really designed to remain equally in force. As stated
in the indorsement of the Budget Commissioner, with whom the respondent
Auditor General concurred, the P0.50 daily post allowance for each of
the letter carriers in Manila was included in the President’s proposed
budget for the fiscal year from July 1, 1957 to June 30, 1958 due to
the absence at that time of any law granting a similar allowance. The
proposed budget, it will be noted, was submitted to Congress on
February 11, 1957, or months before the approval and passage of
Republic Act No. 1631. As approved and passed into law, the said budget
did not provide, and we do not think it was ever intended, that the
P0.50 allowance authorized in Item No. 563 thereof was an additional
allowance. In this connection, it is significant and enlightening to
note that the General Appropriations Act for the following fiscal years
passed by Congress in subsequent sessions appropriated—pursuant to the
second paragraph of section 2 of Republic Act No. 1631 providing that
“Such sums as thereafter may be needed for the same purpose shall be
included in the Annual General Appropriations Act”—the sum of
P150,000.00, or so much thereof as may be necessary “for post allowance
of letter carriers and special delivery messengers in Manila at P1 and
P. 50 each daily, respectively.” (Italics supplied; see Item
No. 920, Rep. Act No. 2080; Item No. 992, Rep. Act No. 2300.) These
later enactments show that the obvious policy and intent of legislature
was not to grant to letter carriers in Manila the P0.50 daily post
allowance provided for in Republic Act No. 1800 in addition, to the one
peso allowance now being paid them under Republic Act No. 1631.

In view of the foregoing, the denial of petitioner’s claim by the Auditor General is affirmed, with costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Barrera, JJ., concur.