You are on page 1of 6

Pesigan vs Angeles

Nature: Petition to review the order of the Caloocan City RTC Facts: Anselmo and Marcelo Pesigan transported in the evening of April 2 !"#2 twenty$si% cara&aos and a calf from Camarines 'ur with (atangas as their destination) They were provided with three certificates: !* a health certificate from the provincial veterinarian 2* permit to transfer+transport from the provincial commander, and -* three certificates of inspections) .n spite of the papers the cara&aos were confiscated &y the provincial veterinarian and the town/s police station commander while passing through Camarines Norte) Confiscation was &ased on 01 No) 222$A which prohi&its transportation of cara&aos 3 cara&eef from one province to another) .ssue: 41N 01 No) 222$A providing for the confiscation and forfeiture &y the government of cara&aos transported from one province to another dated 1cto&er 25 !"#6 is enforcea&le &efore pu&lication in the 1fficial 7a8ette on 9une !: !"#2 ;eld: No) The said order isn/t enforcea&le against the Pesigans on April 2 !"#2 &ecause it/s a penal regulation pu&lished more than 2 mos) later in the 17) .t &ecame effective only fifteen days thereafter as provided in A2 of the CC 3 <!! of the Revised Administrative Code) The word =laws> in article 2 includes circulars 3 regulations which prescri&e penalties) Pu&lication is necessary to apprise the pu&lic of the contents of the regulations 3 ma?e the said penalties &inding on the persons affected there&y) Commonwealth Act No) 2-# re@uires that all Presidential 01s having general applica&ility should &e pu&lished in the 17) .t provides that =every order or document which shall prescri&e a penalty shall &e deemed to have general applica&ility and legal effect) This applies to a violation of 01 No) 222$A &ecause its confiscation 3 forfeiture provision or sanction ma?es it a penal statute) .t results that they have cause of action for the recovery of the cara&aos) The summary confiscation wasn/t in order) The recipients of the cara&aos should return them to the Pesigans) ;owever they cannot transport the cara&aos to (atangas &ecause they are now &ound &y the said e%ecutive order) Neither can they recover damages) Aoctor Miranda 3 Benerosa acted in good faith in ordering the forfeiture and dispersal of the cara&aos) 9udgment: 1rder of dismissal and confiscation and dispersal of the cara&aos reversed and set aside) Respondents to restore cara&aos with the re@uisite documents to petitioners for their own disposal in (asud or 'ipocot Camarines 'ur) No costs) .mportant point: Pu&lication is necessary to apprise the pu&lic of the contents of the regulations 3 ma?e the said penalties &inding on the persons affected

here&y) 9ustice 3 fairness dictate that the pu&lic must &e informed of that provision &y means of the pu&lication on the 7a8ette) CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCC

People v Deridiano Aigest


7)R) E$222:- 1cto&er !2 !"#: 0ffectivity of laws At issue in this case is the applica&ility of (P 22 which was circulated a month after private respondent issued the dishonored chec?) Facts: !) 1n or a&out the 2nd wee? of May !"F" private respondent (enito 7o (io 9r) issued a chec? amounting to P266 666 to one Filipinas Tan) 'aid chec? was su&se@uently dishonored and despite repeated demands the respondent failed to ma?e the necessary payment) ;ence the filing of charges against him for violation of ()P) 22 or the (ouncing Chec? law) 2) 7o (io filed a Motion to Guash alleging that the information did not charge an offence on ground that (P 22 has not yet ta?en effect when the offense was committed on May !"F") 'aid law too? into effect on 9une 2" !"F") The prosecution opposed the motion and contended that the date of the dishonor of the chec? $$ 'eptem&er 22 !"F" is the date of the commission of the offense hence (P 22 is applica&le) -) The respondent Hudge granted 7o (ioIs motion and dismissed the criminal action hence this petition) Petitioner contends that (P 22 was pu&lished in the 1fficial 7a8ette on April : !"F" and hence &ecame effective !5 days thereafter or on April 2: !"F") PR contends however that said pu&lication was only released on 9une !: !"F" &ut since the @uestioned chec? was issued a&out the second wee? of May !"F" then he could not have violated (P 22 &ecause it was not yet released for circulation at the time) .ssue: 4+N (P 22 was already in effect when the offense was committed N1) The penal statute in @uestion was circulated only on 9une !: !"F" and not on its printed date of April " !"F") Pu&lication of the law is necessary so that the pu&lic can &e apprised of the contents of a penal statute &efore it can &e &ound &y it) .f a statute had not &een pu&lished &efore its violation then in

the eyes of the law there was no such law to &e violated) ;ence the accused could not have committed the alleged crime) .n effect when the alleged offense was committed there was still no law penali8ing it) .f (P 22 intended to ma?e the printed date of issue of the 1fficial 7a8ette as the point of reference in the determination of its the effectivity it could have provided a special effectivity provision) Finally the term Jpu&licationJ in (P 22 must &e given the ordinary accepted meaning to ma?e ?nown to the people in general) CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCC

Tanada vs Tuvera
Nature: Petition to review the decision of the 0%ecutive Assistant to the President) Facts: .nvo?ing the people/s right to &e informed on matters of pu&lic concern a right recogni8ed in 'ection 2 Article .D of the !"F- constitution petitioners see? a writ of mandamus to compel respondent pu&lic officials to pu&lish and+or cause the pu&lication in the 1fficial 7a8ette of various presidential decrees letters of instructions general orders proclamations e%ecutive orders letter of implementation and administrative orders) The respondents would have this case dismissed on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality to &ring this petition) Petitioners maintain that since the su&Hect of the petition concerns a pu&lic right and its o&Hect is to compel pu&lic duty they need not show any specific interest) Respondents further contend that pu&lication in the 17 is not a sine @ua non re@uirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates) .ssue: 41N pu&lication in the 1fficial 7a8atte is an indispensa&le re@uirement for the effectivity of the PAs E1.s general orders 01s etc) where laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates) ;eld: Kes) .t is the people/s right to &e informed on matters of pu&lic concern 3 corollarily access to official records 3 to documents 3 papers pertaining to official acts transactions or decisions shall &e afforded the citi8ens su&Hect to such limitation as may &e provided &y law L<2 A.D !"F- Constitution*) Eaws to &e valid 3 enforcea&le must &e pu&lished in the 17 or otherwise effectively promulgated) The fact that a PA or E1. states its date of effectivity does not preclude their pu&lication in the 17 as they constitute important legislative acts) The pu&lication of presidential issuances =of pu&lic nature> or =of general applica&ility> is a re@uirement of due process) (efore a person may &e &ound &y law he must first &e officially informed of its contents)

9udgment: Respondents ordered to pu&lish in 1fficial 7a8ette all unpu&lished presidential issuances of general application and unless so pu&lished shall have no &inding force and effect) .mpt Point: .t illustrates how decrees 3 issuances issued &y one manMMarcos Mare in fact laws of gen/l application 3 provide for penalties) The constitution afforded Marcos &oth e%ecutive 3 legislative powers) The generality of law LCC A!:* will never wor? w+o constructive notice) The ruling of this case provides the pu&lication constitutes the necessary constructive notice 3 is thus the cure for ignorance as an e%cuse) .gnorance will not even mitigate the crime) CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

MRCA vs CA
7)R) No) #22F5 Aecem&er !" !"#" MRCA .NC) petitioner vs);1N) C1NRT 1F APP0AE' ;1N) (0N9AM.N D) P0EAK1 9udge Regional Trial court National Capital 9udicial Region (ranch !2# Pasig M)M) 'P1N'0' A1M.N71 '0(A'T.AN 9R) 3 E.E.A T.1'0C1 '0(A'T.AN and 0OP0CTAC.1N P) T.1'0C1 respondents) 7R.P1$AGN.N1 9): FACT': A complaint was dismissed &y the Regional Trial Court on the ground of non$payment of theproper filing fees as the prayer of the complaint failed to specify the amounts of moral damages e%emplary damages attorneyIs fees and litigation e%penses sought to &e recovered &y it from thedefendants &ut left them Jto the discretion of this ;onora&le CourtJ or Jto &e proven during thetrial)J Thetrial court/s decision was &ased on the 'upreme Court ruling in Manchester AevelopmentCorporation vs) Court of Appeals) ;owever petitioner argues that since the decision in Manchester had not yet &een pu&lished in the1fficial 7a8ette when its complaint was filed the ruling therein was ineffective, that said ruling may not &e given retroactive effect &ecause it imposes a new penalty for its non$o&servance, the dismissalof the complaint for want of Hurisdiction, and that it should not apply to the present case &ecausethe petitioner herein Lplaintiff in the trial court* had no fraudulent intent to deprive the governmentof the proper doc?eting fee unli?e the Manchester case where enormous amounts of damages wereclaimed in the &ody of the complaint &ut the amounts were not mentioned in the prayer thereof tomislead the cler? of court in computing the filing fees to &e paid)

.''N0: 4hether or not decisions of the 'upreme Court re@uire pu&lication in the 1fficial 7a8ette &eforethey may &e applied to other cases) RNE.N7: No) The rule is pu&lication in the 1fficial 7a8ette is not a prere@uisite for the effectivity of a courtruling even if it lays down a new rule of procedure for Jit is a doctrine well esta&lished that theprocedure of the court may &e changed at any time and &ecome effective at once so long as it doesnot affect or change vested rights)J;owever in accordance with our ruling in 'un .nsurance 1ffice Etd) the petitioner may &e allowedto amend its complaint for the purpose of specifying in terms of pesos how much it claims asdamages and to pay the re@uisite filing fees therefor provided its right of action has not yetprescri&ed) This the petitioner is ready to do) CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

MRCA vs CA
Facts: The Petitioner MRCA .nc) filed a complaint against private respondents spouses Lwho were defendants in said civil case*) 'aid case was dismissed &y the trial court due to the non$payment of proper filing fees when petitioner failed to include include in the complain the amount of moral damages e%emplary damages attorneyIs fees and litigation e%penses sought to &e recovered) The Court of Appeals LCA* affirmed said ruling hence the petitioner comes to 'C &y petition for review) Petitioner contends that the Manchester ruling does not apply to the case since said court decision was not pu&lished in the 1fficial 7a8ette) .t should &e noted that petitioner filed said complaint ten months after the promulgation of the Manchester ruling) .ssue: w+n court rulings need to &e pu&lished in the 1fficial 7a8ette order to &e effective ;0EA: N1) Pu&lication in the 1fficial 7a8ette is not a prere@uisite for the effectivity of a court ruling even if it lays down a new rule or procedure) .t is a well$ esta&lished doctrine that the procedure of the court may &e changed at any time and &ecome effective at once so long as it does not affect or change vested rights) LAguillon v Air) of Eands* As such the court granted the petition and held that the Manchester ruling should apply to the case of the petitioner though it was modified &y the 'un .nsurance case where the court allowed the payment of doc?et fees within a

reasona&le period &ut not &eyond the reglamentary period) Petitioner was allowed to amend the complaint and specify therein the amount of damages it see?s from defendant and pay the proper filing fees) CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

Kao?asin vs Commissioner
7R No) #:!!! Aecem&er 22 !"#" Facts: The Philippine Coast 7uard sei8ed "666 sac?s of refined sugar owned &y petitioner Kao?asin which were then &eing unloaded from the M+D Taclo&an and turned them over to the custody of the (ureau of Customs) 1n 9une F !"## the Aistrict Collector of Customs ordered the release of the cargo to the petitioner &ut this order was su&se@uently reversed on 9une !5 !"##) The reversal was &y virtue ofCustoms Memorandum 1rder LCM1* 26$#F in implementation of the .ntegrated Reorgani8ation Plan under P)A) ! which provides that in protest and sei8ure cases where the decision is adverse to the government the Commissioner of Customs has the power of automatic review) Petitioner o&Hected to the enforcement of 'ec) !2 of the Plan and CM1 26$#F contending that these were not pu&lished in the 1fficial 7a8ette) The Plan which was part of P)A) ! was however pu&lished in the 1fficial 7a8ette) .ssue: 4+n circular orders such as CM1 26$#F need to &e pu&lished in the 17 to ta?e effect N1) Article 2 of the Civil Code does not apply to circulars li?e CM1 26$#F which is an administrative order of the Commissioner of Customs addressed to his su&ordinates the custom collectors) 'aid issuance re@uiring collectors of customs to comply strictly with 'ection !2 of he Plan is addressed only to particular persons or a class of persons Lthe customs collectors* hence no general applica&ility) As held in Tanada v) Tuvera =.t need not &e pu&lished on the assumption that it has &een circulari8ed to all concerned)> Moreover Commonwealth Act) 2-# provides an enumeration of what shall &e pu&lished in the 1fficial 7a8ette) .t provides that &esides legislative acts resolutions of pu&lic nature of Congress e%ecutive administrative orders and proclamations shall &e pu&lished e%cept when these have no general applica&ility) CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC