You are on page 1of 2

Civil Code Digested Cases LORENZO M. TAÑADA vs. HON. JUAN C.

TUVERA 146 SCRA 446 April 24, 1985

Facts: Petitioners Lorenzo M. Tanada, et. al. invoked due process in demanding the disclosure of a number of Presidential Decrees which they claimed had not been published as required by Law. The government argued that while publication was necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was otherwise provided, as when the decrees themselves declared that they were to become effective immediately upon approval. The court decided on April 24, 1985 in affirming the necessity for publication of some of the decrees. The court ordered the respondents to publish in the official gazette all unpublished Presidential Issuances which are of general force and effect. The petitioners suggest that there should be no distinction between laws of general applicability and those which are not. The publication means complete publication, and that publication must be made in the official gazette. In a comment required by the solicitor general, he claimed first that the motion was a request for an advisory opinion and therefore be dismissed. And on the clause “unless otherwise provided” in Article 2 of the new civil code meant that the publication required therein was not always imperative, that the publication when necessary, did not have to be made in the official gazette.

Issues: (1) (2) Whether or not all laws shall be published in the official gazette Whether or not publication in the official gazette must be in full

Held:

(1) The court held that all statue including those of local application shall be published as condition for their effectivity unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. (2) The publication must be full or no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the content of the laws.

to the exclusion of all further claims under other laws. this petition. ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff. 137873 April 20.M. Jose Juego´s widow. a construction worker of D. Held: The decision of the CA is affirmed. fell 14 floors from the Renaissance Tower.M. Inc. the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC in toto. 2001 FACTS: On November 2. Consunji. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner (Consunji) is negligent and should be liable.M. The CA held that the case at bar came under exception because private respondent was unaware of petitioner´s negligence when she filed her claim for death benefits from the State Insurance Fund. Hence..M. On appeal by D. Consunji. The employer raised. Pasig City to his death. The claims for damages sustained by workers in the course of their employment could be filed only under the Workmen´s Compensation Law. Consunji. Jose Juego. the widow´s prior availment of the benefits from the State Insurance Fund. among other defenses. 1990. D. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the widow Maria Juego. . filed in the RTC of Pasig a complaint for damages against the deceased´s employer. Inc. On May 9.D. CONSUNJI vs. COURT OF APPEALS GR No. 1991.