You are on page 1of 10

CIVIL LAW REVIEW I

VICE DEAN MARCIANO G. DELSON

PRELIMINARY TITLE
CHAPTER I: EFFECT AND APPLICATION OF LAWS
1. TANADA v. TUVERA
G.R. No. L-63915, 29 December 1986
FACTS: Petitioners sought the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to compel the respondent public officials to
publish, and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential decrees, letters of
instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letters of implementation and administrative
orders. However, the respondents contended that the publication in the Official Gazette was not a condition sine
qua non for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for the effectivity.
ISSUE/S: Is publication indispensable in light of the clause, unless it is otherwise provided in Art. 2 of the NCC?

HELD: Yes. The clause "unless it is otherwise provided" refers to the date of effectivity and not to the
requirement of publication itself, which cannot in any event be omitted. This clause does not mean that the
legislature may make the law effective immediately upon approval, or on any other date, without its previous
publication. Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may in its discretion provide that the
usual fifteen day period shall be shortened or extended.
The requirement of publication applies to (1) all statutes, including those of local application and private laws; (2)
presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers
whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or directly conferred by the Constitution; (3)
Administrative rules and regulations for the purpose of enforcing or implementing existing law pursuant also to a
valid delegation; (4) Charter of a city notwithstanding that it applies only to a portion of the national territory and
directly affects only the inhabitants of that place;(5) Monetary Board circulars to "fill in the details" of the Central
Bank Act which that body is supposed to enforce.
On the other hand, publication requirements does not apply to (1) interpretative regulations and those merely
internal in nature, i.e. regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public; (2) Letters of
Instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their
subordinates in the performance of their duties; and (3) instructions of Ministry heads on case studies,
assignments of personnel, etc. Municipal ordinances are not covered by this rule but by the Local Government
Code.

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW

CIVIL LAW REVIEW I


VICE DEAN MARCIANO G. DELSON
2. DE ROY v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 80718, 29 January 1988

FACTS: A firewall of a burned -out building owned by the petitioners collapsed over the tailoring shop of the
family of the respondents which resulted to the death of Marissa Bernal, their daughter. A decision was rendered
by RTC CA were in favor of the respondents. On the last day of appeal, petitioners filed a motion for extension
of time to file the appeal but was denied by CA, applying the ruling in Habaluyas Enterprises v. Japzon.
ISSUE/S: Should SC decisions be published in the Official Gazette in order to be binding?
HELD: No. There is no law requiring the publication of Supreme Court decisions in the Official Gazette before
they can be binding and as a condition to their becoming effective. It is the bounden duty of counsel as lawyer in
active law practice to keep abreast of decisions of the Supreme Court particularly where issues have been
clarified, consistently reiterated, and published in the advance reports of Supreme Court decisions (G. R. s) and
in such publications as the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) and law journals.

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW

CIVIL LAW REVIEW I


VICE DEAN MARCIANO G. DELSON
3. PEOPLE v. QUE PO LAY G.R.
No. L-6791, 29 March 1954

FACTS: Que Po Lay was found guilty of violating Central Bank Circular No. 20. He appealed the conviction and
said that since such circular was not published in the Official Gazette, it had no force and effect.
ISSUE/S: Should bank circulars of general applicability be published in order to have force and effect?
HELD: Yes. Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank 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. Moreover,
as a rule, circulars and regulations especially like the Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank in question which
prescribes a penalty for its violation should be published before becoming effective, this, on the general principle
and theory that 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.

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW

CIVIL LAW REVIEW I


VICE DEAN MARCIANO G. DELSON
4. NPC v. PINATUBO COMMERCIAL
GR NO. 176006, 26 March 2010

FACTS: RTC declared unconstitutional items 3 and 3.1 of NPC Circular No. 99-75 which provides that only
partnerships or corporations that directly use aluminum as the raw material in producing finished products either
purely or partly out of aluminum, to participate in the bidding for the disposal of ACSR wires for being violative of
substantial due process because, while it created rights in favor of third parties, the circular had not been
published. NPC contended that it not be published since it was not of general application.
ISSUE/S: Should the NPC Circular be published?
HELD: No. 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. Neither is publication required of the socalled letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed
by their subordinates in the performance of their duties.
NPC Circular No. 99- 75 did not have to be published since it was merely an internal rule or regulation. It did not
purport to enforce or implement an existing law but was merely a directive issued by the NPC President to his
subordinates to regulate the proper and efficient disposal of scrap ACSRs to qualified bidders. Thus, NPC
Circular No. 99-75 defined the responsibilities of the different NPC personnel in the disposal, pre-qualification,
bidding and award of scrap ACSRS. It also provided for the deposit of a proposal bond to be submitted by
bidders, the approval of the award, mode of payment and release of awarded scrap ACSRs. All these guidelines
were addressed to the NPC personnel involved in the bidding and award of scrap ACSRs. 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.

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW

CIVIL LAW REVIEW I


VICE DEAN MARCIANO G. DELSON
5. NERI v. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
GR NO. 180643, 25 March 2008
FACTS: Respondent Committees argue that the Senate does not have to publish its Rules because it was
already published in 1995 and in 2006. They further claim that the Senate, as a continuing body, is not required
to republish the Rules, unless the same is repealed or amended.
ISSUE/S: Should the Senate rules on procedure be published?
HELD: The language of Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution requiring that the inquiry be conducted in
accordance with the duly published rules of procedure is categorical. It is incumbent upon the Senate to publish
the rules for its legislative inquiries in each Congress or otherwise make the published rules clearly state that
the same shall be effective in subsequent Congresses or until they are amended or repealed to sufficiently put
public on notice.
If it was the intention of the Senate for its present rules on legislative inquiries to be effective even in the next
Congress, it could have easily adopted the same language it had used in its main rules regarding effectivity.
Lest the Court be misconstrued, it should likewise be stressed that not all orders issued or proceedings
conducted pursuant to the subject Rules are null and void. Only those that result in violation of the rights of
witnesses should be considered null and void, considering that the rationale for the publication is to protect the
rights of witnesses as expressed in Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution. Sans such violation, orders and
proceedings are considered valid and effective.

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW