PERSONS: EFFECT AND APPLICATION OF LAWS
CASE DIGESTS
1. Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, April 14, 1985
Facts
The petitioners demanded the disclosure of presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders,
proclamations, executive orders, letters of implementation, and administrative orders that have not been
published as mandated by law and filed for a writ of mandamus.
Respondents claimed that petitioners have no legal personality as it was a request for an advisory opinion
through the Solicitor General which he advised to dismiss. They argued that publication in the Official
Gazette is a condition for effectivity where the law themselves provides for their own effectivity dates.
Issue
Whether or not publication in the Official Gazette is required before any law or statute becomes valid and
enforceable
Ruling
YES. The Court declared that all laws defined shall immediately upon their approval, or as soon
thereafter as possible, be published in full in the Official Gazette, to become effective only after fifteen
days from their publication, or on another date specified by the legislature, in accordance with Article 2
of the Civil Code.
The requirement of publication cannot be omitted as it would offend due process by denying public
knowledge. There is a conclusive presumption that everyone knows the law presuming that it has been
published and this serves as the basis of the legal maxim – maxim ignoratia legis nominem excusat.
Article 3, Section 6: The right of the people to information on public concern.
Notes:
Laws must affect public interest
Needs to be published:
o All statutes – local application; private laws
o PDs and EOs
o Administrative Rules and Regulations with purpose to enforce existing laws pursuant to
a valid delegation
o Charter of a city
o Circulars issues
Needs not to be published:
o Interpretative regulations; merely internal in nature – regulating personnel of
administrative agency
o Letters of instructions
o Instructions issued
o Municipal ordinances – covered under the Local Government Code
Publications must be in full
Old version – must be made in the OG; but now – can be done in newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines (amended by E.O. No. 200)
2. De Roy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80718, January 29, 1988
Facts
Petitioner Feliza De Roy was a respondent in a civil case for damages filed by Luis Bernal – petitioners’
building burnt out and its firewall collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop of respondents which
caused injuries and killed Marissa Bernal (daughter).
RTC found De Roy grossly negligent and granted damages to Bernal. CA affirmed.
On the last day of the 15-day period to file an appeal, petitioners filed a motion for an extension of time to
file a motion for reconsideration.
The CA denied motion applying citing the rule laid down in Habaluyas Enterprises v. Japzon that said
period cannot be extended.
Petitioners content that the rule enunciated in the Habaluyas case should not be applicable to the case at
bar owing to the non-publication of the Habaluyas decision in the Official Gazette.
Issue
Whether or not SC decisions are required to be published in the Official Gazette before becoming binding
and as condition to their effectivity
Ruling
NO, publication is not required.
There is not law requiring the publication of SC decisions in the Official Gazette before they can be
binding and as a condition to their becoming effective.
It is bounden duty of counsel as a lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of decisions of the SC
particularly where issues have been clarified, consistently reiterated, and published in the advance
reports of SC decisions and in such publications as the SCRA and law journals.
Petitioners’ contention is without merit.
SC decisions are binding and effective even without being published in the Official Gazette.
Notes:
Habaluyas case: 15-day period for appealing or for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be
extended
Resolution was promulgated – June 30, 1986 from the Habaluyas case
There is a 1-month grace period wherein barring extensions of time to file motions was not strictly
enforceable
In this case, petitioner filed on September 9, 1987 which was more than a year after the expiration
of the grace period on June 30, 1986
3. People v. Que Po Lay 94 Phil 640
Facts
Que Po Lay is appealing from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, finding him guilty of
violating Central Bank Circular No. 20 in connection with Section 34 of Republic Act No. 265.
The charge was that the appellant who was in possession of foreign exchange consisting of U.S. dollars,
U.S. checks, and U.S. money orders amounting to $7,000 failed to sell the same to the Central Bank
through its agents within one day following the receipt of such foreign exchange as required by Circular
No. 20.
Que Po Lay claims that Circular No. 20 was not published in the Official Gazette prior to the act or
omission imputed to the appellant, and that the Circular had no force and effect.
Issue
Whether or not Central Bank Circular No. 20 is covered by rules of publication in order to be binding and
effective
Ruling
YES, Article 2 provides that laws shall take effect after 15 days following the completion of their
publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided.
The Circular is not a statute or law but being issued for the implementation of the law authorizing its
issuance, it has the force and effect of law according to settled jurisprudence.
Circulars and regulations which prescribes a penalty for its violation should be published before
becoming effective (punitive in nature)
General principle: before the public is bound by its contents, especially its penal
provisions, a law, regulation or circular must first be published and the people officially
and specifically informed of said contents and its penalties
“Laws” include regulations and circulars issued in accordance with the same.
The Circular was issued in 1949 but not published until November 1951, about 3 months after appellant’s
conviction of violation.
It is clear that the Circular did not have any legal effect and bound no one until its publication in the
Official Gazette or after November 1951.
Appellant cannot be held liable for it was not binding at the time he was found to have failed to sell the
foreign exchange in his possession thereof.
If the Circular had not been published before the violation, then in the eyes of the law there was no such
circular to be violated and consequently appellant committed no violation, and the trial court may have
had no jurisdiction.
The Solicitor General contends that this question of non-publication is being raised for the first time on
appeal in this Court, which cannot be done. However, the Court states that this question may be raised at
any stage of the proceeding whether or not raised in the court below.
Notes:
So long as it is punitive in nature, it is required publication under Article 2 – cannot be given punitive
effect unless published (People v. Uy Kimpong, Jr. – Minimum Wage Law)
4. NPC v. Pinatubo Commercial, G.R. No. 176006, March 26, 2010
Facts
NPC published an invitation for the pre-qualification of bidders for the public sale of its scrap ACSR
cables. Respondent Pinatubo Commercial, a trader of scrap materials, submitted a pre-qualification form
to NPC and was denied. Pinatubo asked for reconsideration but NPC denied it.
Pinatubo argued that the circular was unconstitutional as it violated the due process and equal protection
clauses of the Constitution, and ran counter to the government policy of competitive bidding.
RTC upheld Pinatubo’s position and declared items 3 and 3.1 of the circular unconstitutional. RTC ruled
that it was violative of substantive due process because, while it created rights in favor of third parties,
the circular had not been published.
NPC insists that there was no need to publish it as it was not of general application and only addressed to
particular persons, namely the disposal committees, heads of offices, regional and all other officials
involved in the disposition of ACSRs.
Issues
Whether or not NPC Circular No. 99-75 must be published
Sub-issues:
Whether items 3 and 3.1 of NPC Circular No. 99-75 –
(a) Violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution
(b) Restrained free trade and competition
Ruling
NO.
Tanada v. Tuvera qualified that interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is
regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published.
NPC Circular No. 99-75 did not have to be published since it was merely an internal rule of regulation. It
did not purport to enforce an existing law but was merely a directive issues by the NPC President to his
subordinates to regulate proper disposal of the ACSRs to qualified bidders.
It did not, in any way, affect the rights of the public in general or of any other person not involved in the
bidding process. Assuming it affected individual rights, it did so only remotely, indirectly and
incidentally.
Answer to sub-issues:
Items 3 and 3.1 clearly did not infringe on the equal protection clause as these were based on reasonable
classification intended to protect, not the right of any business or trade but the integrity of government
property, as well as promote the objectives of RA 7832.
Items 3 and 3.1 of NPC Circular No. 99-75 did not restrain trade or competition.
5. Neri vs. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers, G.R. No. 180643, September 4,
2008
Facts
Issue
Ruling
