Cited Laws
accordingly . 5. Effectivity. -- This Executive Order shall take effect immediately. DONE in the City of Manila, this 18th day of February, in the year of Our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-Three." (Italics supplied) Specifically mandated to be accomplished within the limited timeframe of six months from the issuance of the law, the reorganization under Executive Order No. 877 clearly supplanted that which was provided under Executive Order No. 756. Nowhere is this more evident than Section 4 of said latter law which provides that, "All provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1071 and Executive Order No. 756, as well as of other laws, decrees, executive orders or issuances, or parts thereof that are in conflict with this Executive Order, are hereby repealed or modified accordingly." In utilizing the computation of the benefits provided under Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 for employees considered laid off for not being reappointed under petitioner's new reorganized structure, Executive Order No. 877 was correctly interpreted by respondent to evince an intent not to extend said gratuity beyond the six-month period within which the reorganization is to be accomplished. In the case of Conte v. Commission on Audit, [31] this Court ruled that the prohibition against separate or supplementary insurance and/or retirement plan under Section 28, Subsection (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 186 was meant to prevent the undue and iniquitous proliferation of such plans in different government offices. Both before the issuance and after the effectivity of Executive Order Nos. 756 and 877, petitioner's employees were governed by and availed of the same retirement laws applicable to other government employees in view of the absence of a specific provision thereon under Presidential Decree No. 252, [32] its organic law, and Presidential Decree No. 1071, otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the PITC . As appropriately pointed out by respondent, petitioner's observance of said general retirement laws may be gleaned from the fact that the Reserve for Retirement Gratuity and Commutation of Leave Credits for its employees were based only on their basic salary and did not include allowances they received. No less than Eligia Romero, petitioner's employee whose claim for retirement differentials triggered the instant inquiry, was granted benefits under Republic Act No. 1616 upon her retirement on December 31, 1983. It doesn't help petitioner's cause any that Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756, in relation to Section 3 of Executive Order No. 877, was further amended by Republic Act No. 6758, [33] otherwise known as the Compensation and Classification Act of 1989 . Mandated under Article IX B, Section 5 [34] of the Constitution, [35] Section 4 [36] of Republic Act No. 6758 specifically extends its coverage to government owned and controlled corporations like petitioner. With this Court's ruling in Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Commission on Audi