G.R. No.

L-63915 DEC 29 1986

LORENZO M. TAÑADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO, and MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR

BROTHERHOOD, INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. [MABINI], petitioners,
vs.
HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, in his capacity as Executive Assistant to the President, HON.
JOAQUIN VENUS, in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to the President ,
MELQUIADES P. DE LA CRUZ, in his capacity as Director, Malacañang Records Office, and
FLORENDO S. PABLO, in his capacity as Director, Bureau of Printing, respondents.

FACTS:

1. 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.

2. 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 The court ordered the respondents to publish in the official gazette all unpublished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

3. This is a motion for reconsideration of the decision promulgated on April 24, 1985. Respondent argued
that while publication was necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was “otherwise” as when the decrees
themselves declared that they were to become effective immediately upon their approval.

ISSUE:

1. W/N THE TERM UNLESS IT IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED REFERS TO THE requirement of publication IN
THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE

1. Whether or not a distinction be made between laws of general applicability and laws which are not as
to their publication;
2. Whether or not a publication shall be made in publications of general circulation.

RULING:

1. 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.

2. “Laws” should refer to all laws and not only to those of general application, for strictly speaking, all
laws relate to the people in general albeit there are some that do not apply to them directly. All statutes,
including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity,
which shall begin 15 days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.

2.1 Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all, since its purpose is to inform the public of the
content of the law.

3. Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that publication of laws must be made in the Official Gazette, and
not elsewhere, as a requirement for their effectivity.
G.R. No. 80718 January 29, 1988

FELIZA P. DE ROY and VIRGILIO RAMOS, petitioners,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and LUIS BERNAL, SR., GLENIA BERNAL, LUIS BERNAL, JR., HEIRS
OF MARISSA BERNAL, namely, GLICERIA DELA CRUZ BERNAL and LUIS BERNAL,
SR., respondents.

FACTS :

1. The firewall of a burned out building owned by Felisa De Roy collapsed and destroyed
the tailoring shop occupied by the family of Luis Bernal resulting in injuries and even to the
death of Bernal’s daughter.

2. In the RTC, De Roy was found guilty of gross negligence. She appealed but the Court of
Appeals affirmed the RTC

3. PA EXTEND SABI NI DE ROY

4. The CA ruled that pursuant to the case of Habaluyas Enterprises vs Japzon (August
1985), the fifteen-day period for appealing or for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot
be extended

5. De Roy’s counsel however argued that the Habaluyas case should not be applicable
because said ruling was never published in the Official Gazette.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not Supreme Court decisions must be published in the Official Gazette before
they can be binding.

RULING:

1. No. There is no law requiring the publication of Supreme Court decision in the Official
Gazette before they can be binding and as a condition to their becoming effective. It is
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 and in such publications as
the SCRA and law journals.
G.R. No. L-6791 March 29, 1954

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
QUE PO LAY, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:

1. The appellant was in possession of foreign exchange consisting of US dollars, US

checks and US money orders amounting to about $7000 but failed to sell the same
to the Central Bank as required under Circular No. 20.

2. Circular No. 20 was issued in the year 1949 but was published in the Official
Gazette only on Nov. 1951 after the act or omission imputed to Que Po Lay.

3. Que Po Lay appealed from the decision of the lower court finding him guilty of
violating Central Bank Circular No. 20 in connection with Sec 34 of RA 265
sentencing him to suffer 6 months imprisonment, pay fine of P1,000 with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

ISSUE:

1. W/N CENTRAL BANK CIRCULAR NO. 20 SHALL HAVE NO EFFECT, RENDERING

THE ACQUITTAL OF QUE PO LAY.

RULING:

1. It was held by the Supreme Court, in an en banc decision, that as a rule, circular
and regulations of the Central Bank in question prescribing a penalty for its violation
should be published before becoming effective. This is based on the theory that
before the public is bound by its contents especially its penal provisions, a law,
regulation or circular must first be published for the people to be officially and
specifically informed of such contents including its penalties.
G.R. No. 176006
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION,
-versus-
PINATUBO COMMERCIAL,represented by ALFREDO
A. DY,

MARCH 26 2010

FACTS:

1.. NPC Circular No. 99-75 dated October 8, 1999 set the guidelines in the disposal
of scrap aluminum conductor steel-reinforced to generate additional income for
NPC WHEREIN Items 3 and 3.1 of the circular provide: WHO ARE THE
QUALIFIED BIDDERS ( PARTNERSHIP CORPOS- ALUMINUN CHCHU)

2. In April 2003, NPC published an invitation for the pre-qualification of bidders

for the public sale of its scrap cables. Respondent submitted a pre-qualification
form to NPC. BUT DENIED.

3. Pinatubo then filed a petition in the RTC for the annulment of NPC Circular No.
99-75. Pinatubo argued that the circular was unconstitutional as it violated the
due process

4. The 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.

ISSUE:

1. W/N THE SAID CIRCULARS SHOULD BE PUBLISHED

RULING:

1 NO.IN TANADA VS TUVERA. 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 so-called
letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules or
guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties
G.R. No. 180643 - ROMULO L. NERI in his capacity as Chairman of the
Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and as former Director General of the
National Economic & Development Authority (NEDA),

versus –

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS &

INVESTIGATIONS (BLUE RIBBON), SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRADE &
COMMERCE, and SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE & SECURITY,

Facts:

1. In April April 2007, DOTC entered into a contract with Zhong Xing Telecommunications
Equipment (ZTE) for the supply of equipment and services for the National Broadband
Network (NBN) Project in the amount of $329,481,290.00 (approximately P16 Billion
Pesos).

2. Joe De Venecia issued a statement that several high executive officials and power
brokers were using their influence to push the approval of the NBN Project by the NEDA.

3. Neri, the head of NEDA, was then invited to testify before the Senate Blue Ribbon. He
appeared in one hearing wherein he was interrogated for 11 hrs and during which he
admitted that Abalos of COMELEC tried to bribe him with P200M in exchange for his
approval of the NBN project

4. However, when probed further on what they discussed about the NBN Project,
Neri refused to answer, invoking “executive privilege“

5. He later refused to attend the other hearings

6. The SBRC cited Neri for contempt.

6. Petitioner questions the validity of Senate Committees Order of 30 January

2008 citing petitioner in contempt and directing his arrest.

7. Petitioner also impugns the validity of the Senates Rules of Procedure

Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation for lack of publication for the
14th Congress.
ISSUE:

1. W/N the Senates Rules of Procedure on Inquiries Have Been Published

RULING:

1. The Constitution requires that the Legislature publish its rules of procedure on
the conduct of legislative inquiries in aid of legislation

1.1 In Arnault v. Nazareno, the court rules that the Senate under the 1987
Constitution is not a continuing body because less than majority of the Senators
continue into the next Congress. The consequence is that the Rules of
Procedure must be republished by the Senate after every expiry of the term of
twelve Senators.(3 YEARS)

The publication of the Rules of Procedure in the website of the Senate, or in

pamphlet form available at the Senate, is not sufficient under the Taada v.
Tuvera ruling which requires publication either in the Official Gazette or in a
newspaper of general circulation.
G.R. No. 187714 March 8, 2011

AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., MANUEL B. VILLAR, JOKER P. ARROYO, FRANCIS N.

PANGILINAN, PIA S. CAYETANO, and ALAN PETER S. CAYETANO, Petitioners,
vs.
SENATE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE represented by SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE
ENRILE,Respondents.

FACTS:
1. 5 September 2008, Senator Panfilo Lacson (Senator Lacson) delivered a privilege speech entitled
"Kaban ng Bayan, Bantayan!

2. IN HIS SPEECH –MERONG double entry (SAME UNG PROJECT PERO 2 UNG BUDGET) ON
ACCOUNT OF CONGRESSIONAL INSERTION IN 2008 GEN APPROPRIATIONACT- ₱200
million appropriated for the construction of the President Carlos P. Garcia Avenue Extension from
Sucat Luzon Expressway to Sucat Road in Parañaque City including Right-of-Way (ROW), and
another ₱200 million appropriated for the extension of C-5 road including ROW. ALL OF THIS
LEADS KAY SEN VILLAR ( SENATE PRESIDENT BACK THEN)

3. MADRIGAL – RESOLUTION ABOUT THIS- THEN NAGKAROON NG ETHICS COMMITTEE

4.THEN FROM ETHICS COMMITTEE TO SENATE ACTING AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

5. WENT FOR RELIEF TO COURT ARGUING THAT-The Senate Committee of the Whole likewise
violated the due process clause of the Constitution when it refused to publish the Rules of the
Senate Committee of the Whole in spite of its own provision [which] require[s] its effectivity upon
publication

6. RESPONDENETS REPLIED - Respondent counters that publication is not necessary because

the Senate Committee of the Whole merely adopted the Rules of the Ethics Committee which had
been published in the Official Gazette on 23 March 200

ISSUE:

1. Whether publication of the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole is required for their
effectivity.

RULING:

1. The Constitution does not require publication of the internal rules of the House or Senate. Since
rules of the House or the Senate that affect only their members are internal to the House or Senate,
such rules need not be published, unless such rules expressly provide for their publication
before the rules can take effect. owever, Section 81, Rule 15 of the Rules of the Senate
Committee of the Whole provides:Sec. 81. EFFECTIVITY. These Rules shall be effective after
publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation

Hence, in this particular case, the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole itself provide that the
Rules must be published before the Rules can take effect
SR. INSP. JERRY C. VALEROSO VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPINES

G.R. No. 164815 /February 22, 2008

REYES, R.T., J.:

FACTS:

1.On July 10, 1996, SPO2 Antonio M. Disuanco of the Criminal Investigation
Division, Central Police District Command, received a dispatch order] from the
desk officer. The order directed him and three (3) other policemen to serve a
warrant of arrest against the petitioner

2..At Culiat, Quezon City, where they saw petitioner as he was about to board a
tricycle. Na search is -One (1) cal. 38 Charter Arms revolver bearing Serial No.
52315 with five (5) live ammo.

3. Petitioner was then charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition
under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866

DEFENSE IS-he was fast asleep in the boarding house of his children located at
Sagana Homes, Barangay New Era, Quezon City.- They then tied his hands and
placed him near the faucet According to petitioner, the search done in the
boarding house was illegal.- The gun seized from him was duly licensed and
covered by necessary permits.

RTC AND CA CONVICTED HIM , under R.A. No. 8294 with the penalty of prision
correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000)

However (P.D.) No. 1866, where the penalty is reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to reclusion perpetua, was the existing law at the time of the crime until it
was repealed by RA 8294

ISSUE:

1. W/N THE PENALTY UNDER RA NO 8294 should be the one to be imposed upon
the petitioner.

RULING:
1. YES. As a general rule, penal laws should not have retroactive application, lest
they acquire the character of an ex post facto law. An exception to this rule,
however, is when the law is advantageous to the accused. According to Mr. Chief
Justice Araullo, this is not as a right of the offender, but founded on the very
principles on which the right of the State to punish and the commination of the
penalty are based, and regards it not as an exception based on political
considerations, but as a rule founded on principles of strict justice
 [G.R. No. 104528. January 18, 1996]

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, HOUSING AND LAND
USE REGULATORY BOARD, ET AL

FACTS:

1. Private respondents were buyers on installment of subdivision lots from Marikina Village, Inc

2. The subdivision developer mortgaged the lots in favor of the petitioner, Philippine National
Bank

3. Subdivision developer defaulted and PNB foreclosed on the mortgage. As highest bidder at
the foreclosure sale, the bank became owner of the lots.

4. A decision by the HLURB and OAALA ruled that PNB may collect from private respondents
only the remaining amortization payment and cannot compel them to pay again for the lots
they had already bought from the subdivision developer. The Office of the President affirmed
this decision by declaring Presidential Decree 957*.

DEFENSE IS- Petitioner stated that.The Office of the President erred in applying P.D. 957 because said
law was enacted only on July 12, 1976, while the subject mortgage was executed on December 18, 1975

ISSUE-

1. Whether Presidential Decree 957 applies to sale of land prior to its enactment

RULING:

YES. While P.D. 957 did not expressly provide for retroactivity in its entirety, yet the same can
be plainly inferred from the, unmistakable intent of the law to protect innocent lot buyers from
scheming subdivision developers. As between these small lot buyers and the gigantic financial
institutions which the developers deal with, it is obvious that the law -- as an instrument of social
justice -- must favor the weak. The court ascertained that they will not follow the letter of the
statue if it will not reflect the intent and purpose of the legislature, which is to uphold social
justice and the protection of human rights
 G.R. No. 168129 April 24, 2007

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

vs.
PHILIPPINE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS, INC

1. On 1987, CIR issued VAT Ruling No. 231-88 stating that Philhealth, as a provider of
medical services, is exempt from the VAT coverage

2. When RA 8424 or the new Tax Code was implemented it adopted the provisions of
VAT and E-VAT

3. On 1999, the BIR sent Philhealth an assessment notice for deficiency VAT and
documentary stamp taxes for taxable years 1996 and 1997

RESPONDENT FILED A PROTEST FOR THE TAX IMPOSED

4. After CIR did not act on it, Philhealth filed a petition for review with the CTA. The CTA
withdrew the VAT assessment. The CIR then filed an appeal with the CA ( PHILHEALTH
FAIL TO REPRESENT ITSELF AS HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORG) which was denied.

ISSUE:

1. Whether VAT Ruling No. 231-88 exempting Philhealth from payment of VAT has
retroactive application.

RULING:

1. YES. Generally, the NIRC has no retroactive application except when:

1. Where the taxpayer deliberately misstates or omits material facts from his return or in
any document required of him by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;
2. Where the facts subsequently gathered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue are
materially different from the facts on which the ruling is based, or
3. Where the taxpayer acted in bad faith.

The Court held that Philhealth acted in good faith. The term health maintenance
organization was first recorded in the Philippine statute books in 1995. It is apparent that
when VAT Ruling No. 231-88 was issued in Philhealth's favor, the term health
maintenance organization was unknown and had no significance for taxation purposes

Philhealth, therefore, believed in good faith that it was VAT exempt for the taxable
years 1996 and 1997 on the basis of VAT Ruling No. 231-88
D.M. CONSUNJI, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA J.
JUEGO, respondent

[G.R. No. 137873. April 20, 2001]

KAPUNAN, J.:

1. On November 2, 1990, Jose Juego died when he fell 14 floors when the platform
which he was on board fell from the Renaissance Tower in Pasig City. He works for DM
Consunji Inc.

2. It was noted that this happened because the pin inserted to the platform loosened
and there was no safety lock

3. His widow, Maria Juego filed with RTC of Pasig a complaint for damages against DM
Consunji Inc. The employer averred that the widow already availed benefits from the
State Insurance Fund and that she cannot recover civil damages from the company
anymore

Issue:

1. W/N the widow already waived her right which makes her barred from availing
death benefits under the Civil Code because she already availed damages under the
Labor Code

RULING:

2. No, the court ruled that the widow had a right to file an ordinary action for civil
actions because she was not aware and ignorant of her rights and courses of action.
She was not aware of her rights and remedies. Thus, her election to claim from the
Insurance Fund does not waive her claim from the petitioner company, which is larger.
Ignorance of a material fact negates waiver, and waiver cannot be established by a consent given
under a mistake or misapprehension of fact.

The argument that ignorance of the law excuses no one is not applicable in this case
because it is only applicable to mandatory and prohibitory laws
Cui vs. Arellano University G.R. No. 15172 May 30, 1961

FACTS:

1.Plaintiff, preparatory law course in the defendant University. Enrolled in the College of Law
1948-1949 of the defendant. Plaintiff finished his law studies in the defendant university up to and
including the first semester of the fourth year.

2. During all the school years in which plaintiff was studying law in defendant law college, Francisco
R. Capistrano, brother of the mother of plaintiff, was the dean of the College of Law and legal
counsel of the defendant university.

3. Plaintiff enrolled for the last semester of his law studies in the defendant university but failed to
pay his tuition fees because his uncle Dean Francisco R. Capistrano having severed his connection
with Arellano and having accepted the deanship and chancellorship of the College of Law of Abad
Santos University

4. Plaintiff left the defendant's law college and enrolled for the last semester of his fourth year law in
the college of law of the Abad Santos University graduating from the college of law of the latter
university

5. may scholarship siya sa arellano, his semestral tuition fee was returned to him after evry end of
sem (1033.87 total amoung of tuition from 1st year to first sem 4th year)

6. KUKUHA SANA NG TOR SA ARELLANO FOR BAR, PERO AYAW NI ARELLANO- BALIK MUNA
daw 1033.87 PESOS

7. On August 16, 1949, the Director of Private Schools issued Memorandum No. 38, series
of 1949, on the subject of "Scholarships", addressed to "All heads of private schools,
colleges and universities"
"2. When students are given full or partial scholarships, the amount in tuition and
other fees corresponding to these scholarships should not be subsequently charged to the
recipient students when they decide to... quit school or to transfer to another institution.”
ISSUE:

1. Whether OR NOT the provision of the contract between plaintiff and the defendant, whereby the
former waived his right to transfer to another school without refunding to the latter the equivalent of
his scholarships in cash, is valid or not

RULING

1. The waiver signed by Cui was void as it was contrary to public policy; it was null and void.
Scholarship grants, as pointed out by the Director of the Bureau of Private Schools in
Memorandum No. 38, are awarded in recognition of merit and not to attract and keep brilliant students in
school for their propaganda value. Scholarships are granted not to attract and to keep brilliant
students in school for their propaganda mine but to reward merit or help gifted students in whom
society has an established interest
Section 444. The Chief Executive: Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation. -

(a) The municipal mayor, as the chief executive of the municipal government, shall exercise
such powers and performs such duties and functions as provided by this Code and other
laws.

(b) For efficient, effective and economical governance the purpose of which is the general
welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code, the
municipal mayor shall:

(1) Exercise general supervision and control over all programs, projects, services,
and activities of the municipal government, and in this connection, shall:

(i) Determine the guidelines of municipal policies and be responsible to the

sangguniang bayan for the program of government;

(ii) Direct the formulation of the municipal development plan, with the
assistance of the municipal development council, and upon approval thereof
by the sangguniang bayan, implement the same;

(iii) At the opening of the regular session of the sangguniang bayan for every
calendar year and, as may be deemed necessary, present the program of
government and propose policies and projects for the consideration of the
sangguniang bayan as the general welfare of the inhabitants and the needs
of the municipal government may require;

(iv) Initiate and propose legislative measures to the sangguniang bayan and,
from time to time as the situation may require, provide such information and
data needed or requested by said sanggunian in the performance of its
legislative functions;

(v) Appoint all officials and employees whose salaries and wages are wholly
or mainly paid out of municipal funds and whose appointments are not
otherwise provided for in this Code, as well as those he may be authorized
by law to appoint;

(vi) Upon authorization by the sangguniang bayan, represent the municipality

in all its business transactions and sign on its behalf all bonds, contracts, and
obligations, and such other documents made pursuant to law or ordinance;

(vii) Carry out such emergency measures as may be necessary during and in
the aftermath of man-made and natural disasters and calamities;

(viii) Determine, according to law or ordinance, the time, manner and place of
payment of salaries or wages of the officials and employees of the
municipality;

(ix) Allocate and assign office space to municipal and other officials and
employees who, by law or ordinance, are entitled to such space in the
municipal hall and other buildings owned or leased by the municipal
government;
(x) Ensure that all executive officials and employees of the municipality
faithfully discharge their duties and functions as provided by law and this
Code, and cause to be instituted administrative or judicial proceedings
against any official or employee of the municipality who may have committed
as offense in the performance of his official duties;

(xi) Examine the books, records and other documents of all offices, officials,
agents or employees of the municipality and in aid of his executive powers
and authority, require all national officials and employees stationed in or
assigned to the municipality to make available to him such books, records,
and other documents in their custody, except those classified by law as
confidential;

(xii) Furnish copies of executive orders issued by him to the provincial

governor within seventy-two (72) hours after their issuance: Provided, That
municipalities of Metropolitan Manila Area and that of any metropolitan
political subdivision shall furnish copies of said executive orders to the
metropolitan authority council chairman and to the Office of the President;

(xiii) Visit component barangays of the municipality at least once every six (6)
months to deepen his understanding of problems and conditions therein,
listen and give appropriate counsel to local officials and inhabitants, inform
the component barangay officials and inhabitants of general laws and
ordinances which especially concern them, and otherwise conduct visits and
inspections to the end that the governance of the municipality will improve
the quality of life of the inhabitants;

(xiv) Act on leave applications of officials and employees appointed by him

and the commutation of the monetary value of leave credits according to law;

(xv) Authorize official trips outside of the municipality of municipal officials

and employees for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days;

(xvi) Call upon any national official or employee stationed in or assigned to

the municipality to advise him on matters affecting the municipality and to
make recommendations thereon, or to coordinate in the formulation and
implementation of plans, programs and projects, and when appropriate,
initiate an administrative or judicial action against a national government
official or employee who may have committed an offense in the performance
of his official duties while stationed in or assigned to the local government
unit concerned;

(xvii) Subject to availability of funds, authorize payment of medical care,

necessary transportation, subsistence, hospital or medical fees of municipal
officials and employees who are injured while in the performance of their
official duties and functions;

(xviii) Solemnize marriages, any provision of law to the contrary

notwithstanding;

(xix) Conduct a palarong bayan, in coordination with the Department of

Education, Culture and Sports, as an annual activity which shall feature
 traditional sports and disciplines included in national and international games;
and

(xx) Submit to the provincial governor the following reports: an annual report
containing a summary of all matters pertaining to the management,
administration and development of the municipality and all information and
data relative to its political, social and economic conditions; and
supplemental reports when unexpected events and situations arise at any
time during the year, particularly when man-made or natural disasters or
calamities affect the general welfare of the municipality, province, region or
country. mayors of municipalities of the Metropolitan Manila Area and other
metropolitan political subdivisions shall submit said reports to their respective
metropolitan council chairmen and to the Office of the President;

(2) Enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of the municipality and
the exercise of its corporate powers provided for under Section 22 of this Code
implement all approved policies, programs, projects, services and activities of the
municipality and, in addition to the foregoing, shall:

(i) Ensure that the acts of the municipality's component barangays and of its
officials and employees are within the scope of their prescribed powers,
functions, duties and responsibilities;

(ii) Call conventions, conferences, seminars or meetings of any elective and

appointive officials of the municipality, including provincial officials and
national officials and employees stationed in or assigned to the municipality
at such time and place and on such subject as he may deem important for
the promotion of the general welfare of the local government unit and its
inhabitants;

(iii) Issue such executive orders as are necessary for the proper enforcement
and execution of laws and ordinances;

(iv) Be entitled to carry the necessary firearm within his territorial jurisdiction;

(v) Act as the deputized representative of the National Police Commission,

formulate the peace and order plan of the municipality and upon its approval
implement the same and exercise general and operational control and
supervision over the local police in the municipality in accordance with R.A.
No 6975;

(vi) Call upon the appropriate law enforcement agencies to suppress

disorder, riot, lawless violence, rebellion or sedition or to apprehend violators
of the law when public interest so requires and the municipal police forces
are inadequate to cope with the situation or the violators;

(3) Initiate and maximize the generation of resources and revenues, and apply the
same to the implementation of development plans, program objectives and priorities
as provided for under Section 18 of this Code, particularly those resources and
revenues programmed for gro-industrial development and country-wide growth and
progress, and relative thereto, shall:
 (i) Require each head of an office or department to prepare and submit an
estimate of appropriations for the ensuing calendar year, in accordance with
the budget preparation process under Title Five, Book II of this Code;

(ii) Prepare and submit to the sanggunian for approval the executive and
supplemental budgets of the municipality for the ensuing calendar year in the
manner provided for under Title Five, Book II of this Code;

(iii) Ensure that all taxes and other revenues of the municipality are collected
and that municipal funds are applied in accordance with law or ordinance to
the payment of expenses and settlement of obligations of the municipality;

(iv) Issue licenses and permits and suspend or revoke the same for any
violation of the conditions upon which said licenses or permits had been
issued, pursuant to law or ordinance;

(v) Issue permits, without need of approval therefor from any national
agency, for the holding of activities for any charitable or welfare purpose,
excluding prohibited games of chance or shows contrary to law, public policy
and public morals;

(vi) Require owners of illegally constructed houses, buildings or other

structures to obtain the necessary permit, subject to such fines and penalties
as may be imposed by law or ordinance, or to make necessary changes in
the construction of the same when said construction violates any law or
ordinance, or to order the demolition or removal of said house, building or
structure within the period prescribed by law or ordinance;

(vii) Adopt adequate measures to safeguard and conserve land, mineral,

marine, forest, and other resources of the municipality; provide efficient and
effective property and supply management in the municipality; and protect
the funds, credits, rights and other properties of the municipality; and

(viii) Institute or cause to be instituted administrative or judicial proceedings

for violation of ordinances in the collection of taxes, fees or charges, and for
the recovery of funds and property; and cause the municipality to be
defended against all suits to ensure that its interests, resources and rights
shall be adequately protected;

(4) Ensure the delivery of basic services and the provision of adequate facilities as
provided for under Section 17 of this Code and, in addition thereto, shall:

(i) Ensure that the construction and repair of roads and highways funded by
the national government shall be, as far as practicable, carried out in a
spatially contiguous manner and in coordination with the construction and
repair of the roads and bridges of the municipality and the province; and

(ii) Coordinate the implementation of technical services rendered by national

and provincial offices, including public works and infrastructure programs in
the municipality; and
 (5) Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as may
be prescribed by law or ordinance.

(c) During his incumbency, the municipal mayor shall hold office in the municipal hall.

(d) The municipal mayor shall receive a minimum monthly compensation corresponding to
Salary Grade twenty-seven (27) as prescribed under R.A. No. 6758 and the implementing
guidelines issued pursuant thereto.
ANTONIO A. MECANO, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent.

G.R. No. 103982. December 11, 1992

Ponente: CAMPOS, JR.

FACTS:

1. Petitioner requested reimbursement for his expenses on the ground that he is entitled
to the benefits under Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 (RAC).

2. Commission on Audit (COA) Chairman, in his 7th Indorsement, denied petitioner’s

claim on the ground that Section 699 of the RAC had been repealed by
the Administrative Code of 1987 (Exec. Order No. 292), solely for the reason that the
same section was not restated nor re-enacted in the latter.

3. Petitioner also anchored his claim on Department of Justice Opinion No. 73, S. 1991
by Secretary Drilon stating that “the issuance of the Administrative Code did not
operate to repeal or abrogate in its entirety the Revised Administrative Code.

4. The COA, on the other hand, strongly maintains that the enactment of the
Administrative Code of 1987 operated to revoke or supplant in its entirety the RAC

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the Administrative Code of 1987 repealed or abrogated Section 699
of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917.

RULING

1.NO. Before there can be a repeal, there must be a clear showing on the part of the
lawmaker that the intent in enacting the new law was to abrogate the old one

The intention to repeal must be clear and manifest; otherwise, at least, as a general
rule, the later act is to be construed as a continuation of, and not a substitute for, the
first act and will continue so far as the two acts are the same from the time of the first
enactment

It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that repeals of statutes by implication are

not favoured therefore The two Codes should be read in pari material
G.R. No. L-39990 July 22, 1975

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
RAFAEL LICERA

CASTRO, J.

FACTS:

1. DEC 3 1965 CHIEF OF POLICE AABRA DE ILOG OCCIDENTAL MINODRO- COMPLAIN

AGAINST RAFAEL LICERA- illegal possession of Winchester rfle, calibre

2. Municipal court- guilty

3. CFIJOINT TRIAL- ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND ASSAULT UPO AN EGNT IN PERSON IN

AUTHORITY

4.AUG 1968 ACQUIT NA SA ASSAUL PERO TULOY PARIN ILLEGAL POSESSION

5. DEFENSE NIYA IS- IM A SECRET AGENT APPOINTED BY GOV OF BATANGAS.thus exempt

ako sa issuance of license to possess firearm (PEOPLE VS MACARANDANG 1961) MALI
ANG COURT ON RELYING ON THE OTHER CASE (PEOPLE VS MAPA 1959)- SEC 879 OF
REVISED ADMIN CODE ( WALANG EXEMPTION ANG AGENTS BLABLA)

ISSUE:

1. W/N MACARANDANG CASE 1961 SHOULD BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE INSTEAD OF MAPA
CASE 1959

RULING:

1. YES. It cannot be questioned that judicial decisions are part of the legal system.
Judicial decisions, although in themselves not laws, constitute evidence of what the
laws mean. In the case at bar. the Court’s interpretation of section 879 of the Revised
Administrative Code in MACARANDANG CASE—formed part of our jurisprudence and,
hence, of this jurisdiction’s legal system. New doctrine abrogates an old rule, the new
doctrine should operate prospectively only and should not adversely affect those
favored by the old rule,
G.R. No. L-10010 August 1, 1916

CHU JAN, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
LUCIO BERNAS,

ARAULLO, J.:

FACTS:

1.June 26, 1913, a match was held in the cockpit of the municipality of Tabaco, Albay, between
two cocks belonging to the plaintiff and to the defendant respectively

2. 160 WAGER

3. REFEREE ANNOUNCED- BERNAS WINNER

4. CHU JAN- WENT TO JUSTICE OF PEACE COURT OF THE PUEBLE ASKING NA MANOK
NIYA DAPAT NANALO

5. JUSTICE OF PEACE COURT- DRAW UNG MATCH

6. BERNAS APPEALED TO CFI > CFI DISMISSED KASI DI SIYA FAMILIAR WITH RULES ON
COCKFIGHTS, AND HE KNOWS NO LAW THAT GOVERNS THE RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFF
AND DEFENDANT CONCERNING COCKFIGHTS.

ISSUE

1. W/N THE insufficiency of the laws is an acceptable ground for a judge or court to
dismiss a case.

RULING:

1. NO, The ignorance of the court or his lack of knowledge regarding the law
applicable to a case submitted to him for decision, the fact that the court does not
know the rules applicable to a certain matter that is the subject of an appeal which
must be decided by him and his not knowing where to find the law relative to the case,
are not reasons that can serve to excuse the court for terminating the proceedings by
dismissing them without deciding the issues.

REMANDED BACK TO LOWER COURT

G.R. No. L-42050-66 November 20, 1978

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
HONORABLE JUDGE AMANTE P. PURISIMA, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA,
BRANCH VII, and PORFIRIO CANDELOSAS, NESTOR BAES, ELIAS L. GARCIA, SIMEON
BUNDALIAN, JR., JOSEPH C. MAISO, EDUARDO A. LIBORDO, ROMEO L. SUGAY,
FEDERICO T. DIZON, GEORGE M. ALBINO, MARIANO COTIA, JR., ARMANDO L. DIZON,
ROGELIO B. PARENO, RODRIGO V. ESTRADA, ALFREDO A. REYES, JOSE A.
BACARRA, REYNALDO BOGTONG, and EDGARDO M. MENDOZA, respondents.

G.R. No. L-46229-32 November 20, 1978

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
JUDGE MAXIMO A. MACEREN, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH XVIII,
and REYNALDO LAQUI Y AQUINO, ELPIDIO ARPON, VICTOR EUGENIO Y ROQUE and
ALFREDO VERSOZA, respondents.

G.R. No. L-46313-16 November 20, 1978

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
JUDGE MAXIMO A. MACEREN, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH XVIII,
and JUANITO DE LA CRUZ Y NUNEZ, SABINO BUENO Y CACAL, TIRSO ISAGAN Y
FRANCISCO and BEN CASTILLO Y UBALDO, respondents.

G.R. No. L-46997 November 20, 1978

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
THE HONORABLE WENCESLAO M. POLO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Samar,
and PANCHITO REFUNCION, respondents.

1. 26 PETITIONS FOR REVIEW TO!!!! by the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila,the Office of
the Provincial Fiscal of Samar, and joined by the Solicitor General

2. Before those courts, Informations were filed charging the respective accused (Duran,
Aquino, Rafuncion) with "illegal possession of deadly weapon" in violation of Presidential
Decree No.9.

3. Judges ruled that walang violation of said pd kasi incomplete ung elements ( wala
ung second) There are two elements to the offense: first, the carrying outside one's
residence of any bladed, blunt, or pointed weapon, etc. not used as a necessary tool
or implement for a livelihood; and second, that the act of carrying the weapon was
either in furtherance of, or to abet, or in connection with subversion, rebellion,
insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public is order.
ISSUE:

Are the Informations filed by the People sufficient in form and substance toconstitute
the offense of "illegal possession of deadly weapon" penalized underPresidential
Decree (PD for short) No. 9?

RULING :

1. NO, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT there is ambiguity in the presidential decree. When
ambiguity exists, it becomes a judicial task to construe and interpret the true meaning
and scope of the measure, guided by the basic principle that penal statutes are to be
construed and applied liberally in favor of the accused and strictly against the state.

There is a principle in statutory construction that there exists a valid presumption that
undesirable consequences were never intended by a legislative measure, and that a
construction of which the statute is fairly susceptible is favored, which will avoid all
objectionable, mischievous, indefensible, wrongful, evil, and injurious consequence
G.R. No. L-5691 December 27, 1910

S. D. MARTINEZ and his wife, CARMEN ONG DE MARTINEZ, plaintiffs-appellees,

vs.
WILLIAM VAN BUSKIRK,

FACTS:

1. On Spetember 11, 1908, Martinez was riding a carromata in Ermita along the left side
of the street when a delivery wagon belonging to the defendant to which a pair of
horses was attached came along the street in the opposite direction at great speed

2. The horses ran into the carromata and wounded Martinez servely

3. The defendant presented evidence that the cochero was a good servant and a
reliable and safe cochero. And that he was delivering stuff so he tied the driving lines of
the horses to the front end of the delivery wagon and went inside the wagon to unload
the stuff to be delivered

4. But while unloading, another vehicle drove by whose driver cracked a whip and
made some noises which frightened the horses and which made it ran away. The
cochero was thrown from the inside of the wagon and was unable to stop the horses.

ISSUE:

1 W/N the employer is liable for the negligence of his cochero

RULING:

1. No. Defendant not liable. Cochero was not negligent. What happened was an
accident. It has been a custom or a matter of common knowledge and universal
practice of merchants to leave horses in the manner which the cochero left it during
the accident. This is the custom in all cities. The public, finding itself unprejudiced by
such practice has acquiesced for years
G.R. No. L-55960 November 24, 1988

YAO KEE, SZE SOOK WAH, SZE LAI CHO, and SY CHUN YEN, petitioners,
vs.
AIDA SY-GONZALES, MANUEL SY, TERESITA SY-BERNABE, RODOLFO SY, and
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

CORTES, J.:

1. Sy Kiat, a Chinese national died in Caloocan City, leaving behind his real and
personal properties in the Philippines worth P 300,000 more or less.

2. Aida Sy-Gonzales, et. al. filed a petition for the grant of letters of administration
claiming among other things that they are children of the deceased with Asuncion
Gillego, a Filipina.

3. The petition was opposed by Yao kee who alleged that she is the lawful wife of the
deceased whom he married in China and that one of her children, Sze Sook Wah,
should be the administrator of the deceased.

4. The CFI decided in favor of Yao Kee’s petition but was modified and set aside by the
court of appeals. No marriage certificate is issued by the Chinese government, a
document signed by the parents or elders of the parties being sufficient

ISSUE:

Whether or not Sy Kiat’s marriage to Yao Kee in accordance with Chinese Law and
Custom conclusive.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court ruled that evidence may prove the fact if marriage between Sy
Kiat and Yao Kee is valid, but it is not sufficient to establish the validity of said marriage
in accordance with Chinese law and custom. A custom must be proved as a fact
according to the rules of evidence and that a local custom as a source of right cannot
be considered by a court of justice unless such custom is properly established by
competent evidence. In the case at bar, petitioners did not present any competent
evidence relative to the law of China on marriage. In the absence of proof of the
Chinese law on marriage, it should be presumed that it is the same as that of the
Philippines.

The Supreme Court affirmed (all of them were acknowledged as natural children,
hence given equal rights) the decision of the Court of Appeals
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and ARTURO V. PARCERO,
petitioners,vs. PRIMETOWN PROPERTY GROUP INC., respondent.
G.R. No. 162155. August 28,2007.

CORONA, J.
FACTS:

1. Gilbert Yap, Vice Chair of Primetown applied on March 11, 1999 for a refund or credit
of income tax which Primetown paid in 1997 because they suffered losses that year due
to the increase of cost of labor and materials, etc.

2. However, despite the losses, they still paid their quarterly income tax and remitted
creditable withholding tax from real estate sales to BIR.

3. On May 13, 1999, revenue officer Elizabeth Santos required Primetown to submit
additional documents to which Primetown complied with. However, its claim was not
acted upon which prompted it to file a petition for review in CTA on April 14, 2000.

4. CTA dismissed the petition as it was filed beyond the 2-year prescriptive period for
filing a judicial claim for tax refund according to Sec 229 of NIRC. According to CTA, the
two-year period is equivalent to 730 days pursuant to Art 13 of NCC.

4.1 Since Primetown filed its final adjustment return on April 14, 1998 and that year 2000
was a leap year, the petition was filed 731 days after Primetown filed its final adjusted
return. Hence, beyond the reglementary period.

5. Primetown appealed to CA. CA reversed the decision of CTA (CA ruled that Article
13 of the Civil Code did not distinguish between a regular year and a leap year.)

ISSUE:

1. W/N petition was filed within the two-year period

RULING:

INSTEAD “ YEARS OF 365 DAYS EACH—MAGIGING 12 MONTHS EACH PER EO 292”

1. Yes. The Court ruled that when a subsequent law impliedly repeals a prior law, the
new law shall apply. In the case at bar, Art 13 of the New Civil Code, which states that
a year shall compose 365 days, shall be repealed by EO 292 Sec 31 of the
Administrative Code of 1987, which states that a year shall be composed of 12 months
regardless of the number of days in a month. Therefore the petition was filed within 2
year period
G.R. No. L-68470 October 8, 1985

ALICE REYES VAN DORN, petitioner,

vs.
HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., as Presiding Judge of Branch CX, Regional Trial
Court of the National Capital Region Pasay City and RICHARD UPTON

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:\

FACTS:

1. Alice Reyes Van Dorn, a Filipino Citizen and private respondent, Richard Upton, a
US citizen, was married in Hong Kong in 1979.

2. They established their residence in the Philippines and had 2 children. They were
divorced in Nevada, USA in 1982

3. Petitioner remarried, this time with Theodore Van Dorn.

4. A suit against petitioner was filed on June 8, 1983, stating that petitioner’s business
in Ermita Manila, the Galleon Shop, is a conjugal property with Upton and prayed
therein that Alice be ordered to render an accounting of the business and he be
declared as the administrator of the said property

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the divorce obtained the spouse valid to each of them.

2. Whether or not Richard Upton may assert his right on conjugal properties.

RULING:

1. As to Richard Upton, YES, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be
recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law.

AS TO Alicia Reyes, NO, under our national law is still considered married to Upton.
However, petitioner should not be obliged to live together with, observe respect
and fidelity, and render support to private respondent.

2. NO. Private respondent is no longer the husband of the petitioner. He would have no
standing to sue petitioner to exercise control over conjugal assets. He is estopped by
his own representation before the court from asserting his right over the alleged
conjugal property.
G.R. No. 80116 June 30, 1989

IMELDA MANALAYSAY PILAPIL, petitioner,

vs.
HON. CORONA IBAY-SOMERA, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court
of Manila, Branch XXVI; HON. LUIS C. VICTOR, in his capacity as the City Fiscal of Manila;
and ERICH EKKEHARD GEILING,

FACTS:

1.Imelda M. Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, was married with private respondent, Erich
Ekkehard Geiling, a German national before the Registrar of Births, Marriages and
Deaths at Friedensweiler, Federal Republic of Germany.

2. They have a child who was born on April 20, 1980 and named Isabella Pilapil Geiling.

3. Conjugal disharmony eventuated in GEILING and he initiated a divorce proceeding

against petitioner in Germany before the Schoneberg Local Court in January 1983.

4. The petitioner then filed an action for legal separation, support and separation of
property before the RTC Manila on January 23, 1983.

5. The decree of divorce was promulgated on January 15, 1986 on the ground of failure
of marriage of the spouses. The custody of the child was granted to the petitioner.

6. On June 27, 1986, private respondent filed 2 complaints for adultery before the City
Fiscal of Manila alleging that while still married to Imelda, latter “had an affair with
William Chia as early as 1982 and another man named Jesus Chua sometime in 1983”

ISSUE:

Whether private respondent can prosecute petitioner on the ground of adultery even
though they are no longer husband and wife as decree of divorce was already issued.

RULING:

1. NO The law specifically provided that in prosecution for adultery and concubinage,
the person who can legally file the complaint should be the offended spouse and
nobody else. Though in this case, it appeared that private respondent is the offended
spouse, the latter obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal Republic of
Germany, and said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines in
so far as he is concerned. Thus, under the same consideration and rationale, private
respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner and has no legal standing to
commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at
the time he filed suit.
EDGAR SAN LUIS, petitioner, vs. FELICIDAD SAN LUIS, respondent.
G.R. No. 133743. February 6, 2007.
YNARES-SANTIAGO

FACTS:

1. FELICISIMO SAN LUIS contracted 3 marriages:

1. VIRGINIA SULIT: had 6 children, died before he did in 1963
2. MERRY LEE CORWIN: US citizen, had son Tobias, divorced him before
Hawaiian courts which was granted in 1973
3. FELICIDAD SAGALONGOS SAN LUIS: married before a Presbyterian Church
in California n 1974, lived with him until he died for 18 years in their Alabang
residence

2. When Felicisimo died, Felicidad filed for DISSOLUTION OF CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP

ASSETS AND SETTLEMENT OF FELICISIMO'S ESTATE, filing for a letter of administration
before RTC Makati

3. Petition was contested by Felicisimo's children for 2 grounds (no legal capacity,
improper venue)

4. TRIAL COURT: It found that the decree of absolute divorce dissolving Felicisimo’s
marriage to Merry Lee was not valid in the Philippines and did not bind Felicisimo who
was a Filipino citizen. It also ruled that paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code
cannot be retroactively applied because it would impair the vested rights of Felicisimo’s
legitimate children.

5. CA- REVERSED THE DECISION

ISSUE:

1. Whether a Filipino who is divorced by his alien spouse abroad may validly remarry
under the Civil Code, considering that Felicidad’s marriage to Felicisimo was
solemnized on June 20, 1974, or before the Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988.

RULING

1. Yes. Paragraph 2 of Article 26 traces its origin to the 1985 case of Van Dorn v. Romillo,
Jr. The Van Dorn case involved a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner.
The Court held therein that a divorce decree validly obtained by the alien spouse is
valid in the Philippines, and consequently, the Filipino spouse is capacitated to remarry
under Philippine law. As such, the Van Dorn case is sufficient basis in resolving a situation
where a divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse. With the enactment of
the Family Code and paragraph 2, Article 26 thereof, our lawmakers JUST codified the
law already established through judicial precedent.