OVERVIEW

Subject Law 100 - Persons and Family Relations

Topic Effectivity of Laws

Case Name DOF v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 209331, 24 August 2015

Docket No. G.R. No. 209331, 24 August 2015

Ponente CARPIO, J

Provision CIVIL CODE, Art. 2, as amended by Exec. Order No. 200 (1987), provides: Laws
shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication either
in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines,
unless it is otherwise provided.

Summary Respondents allege that EO 140 took effect only on 2 October 2013, fifteen days
after its publication in two newspapers of general circulation. Hence, respondents
argue that when CPO 189-2013 was issued, EO 140 was not yet effective.

SC rules that EO 140 was effective at the time CPO 189-2013 was issued.

SC highlighted the provision “unless it is otherwise provided."

Doctrine The provision "unless it is otherwise provided" refers to an effectivity date other than
after fifteen days following the completion of the law's publication. Thus, it is within
the discretion of the legislature, or the Executive Department in this case, whether
to shorten or extend the fifteen day period 13 as long as there is compliance with
the requirement of publication.

In addition, the Court already ruled 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and not the public, need not be published." EO 140 is an internal regulation that
affects primarily the personnel of the DOF and the BOC. It remains valid even
without publication.

RELEVANT FACTS
● September 2, 2013: Issuance of Executive Order No. 140

EO 140 created a Customs Policy Research Office (CPRO) in the Department of Finance. The
CPRO is responsible for reviewing the customs administration policies, rules and procedures, and
thereafter providing sound recommendations for the improvement of the same. Section 9 of EO
140 states that it shall "take effect immediately upon publication in two (2) newspapers of general
circulation."

● September 17, 2013: EO 140 was published in Manila Bulletin and Philippine Star
BOC Commissioner Biazon issued CPO 189-2013 detailing 27 BOC
personnel holding permanent positions of Collector of Customs V and VI to CPRO. This was
approved by DOF Secretary Purisima.
 The respondents filed an action for Declaratory Relief with Application for Temporary Restraining
Order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the Manila RTC. Executive Judge Dela Cruz issued a
72-hour TRO which was extended by Judge Laron-Cacanindin for 20 days.

● October 21, 2013: Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Judge Laron-Cacanindin denied respondents' application for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
● November 5, 2013: Judge Laron-Cacanindin inhibited herself from further hearing the case.

Arguments (Petitioner/s) Arguments (Respondent/s)

1. The case involves personnel action affecting
public officers which is under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission
(CSC).
2. The respondents failed to exhaust all
administrative remedies before filing the petition
before the RTC.
1. The case involves the validity and
constitutionality of CPO 189-2013, beyond the
jurisdiction of the CSC.
2. EO 140 violated Article 2 of the Civil Code
when it became effective immediately after its
publication.

3. The CPO 189-2013 is an internal personnel

order with application limited within BOC, and
cannot be the subject of an action for declaratory
relief.

4. EO 140 states that it shall "take effect

immediately upon publication in two (2)
newspapers of general circulation.”, rendering it
valid.

PROCEDURAL POSTURE
● On 30 September 2013, respondents filed an action for Declaratory Relief with Application for
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Manila
● Executive Judge Dela Cruz issued a TRO for a period of 72 hours enjoining petitioners or any
person acting for and in their behalf from implementing CPO 189-2013. Thereafter, the case was
raffled to the sala of Judge Laron-Cacanindin.
● In the assailed Order of 4 October 2013, Judge Laron-Cacanindin extended Executive Judge
Dela Cruz's 72-hour TRO for 20 days or until 21 October 2013. She then set the hearing for the
issuance of a preliminary injunction on 18 October 2013.
● On 21 October 2013, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Supreme
Court, with prayer for the issuance of a TRO or a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.
● In an Order dated 21 October 2013, Judge Laron-Cacanindin denied respondents' application for
the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
 ISSUE and RATIO DECIDENDI

WHETHER or NOT the RTC has jurisdiction over the action for declaratory relief filed by
respondents.

YES.

The RTC did not abuse its discretion in taking cognizance of the action. The petition went beyond
questioning the detail of respondents. Respondents alleged that CPO 189-2013 was issued even
before EO 140 became effective. When the issue of validity and constitutionality was raised, the case
went beyond the scope of the CSC's jurisdiction because it is no longer limited to personnel action.

WHETHER or NOT the respondents failed to exhaust administrative remedies in filing the
action before the RTC.

NO.

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies allows administrative agencies to carry out their
functions and responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence. Direct
recourse to the trial court, when administrative remedies are available, is a ground for dismissal of the
action.

However, it has exceptions. One of which is where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal,
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

Respondents assail CPO 189-2013 as patently illegal, arbitrary, and oppressive. This falls within the
exceptions where exhaustion of administrative remedies need not be resorted to by respondents.

WHETHER or NOT EO 140 violated Article 2 of the Civil Code when it became effective
immediately after its publication.

NO.

Article 2 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, as amended by EO No. 200 states that laws shall take
effect after 15 days following their publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided.

Thus, it is within the discretion of the legislature or the Executive Department whether to shorten or
extend the 15-day period.

EO 140 took effect on September 17, 2013. Additionally, regulations which are merely internal in
nature, need not be published. EO 140 is an internal regulation that affects primarily the personnel of
the DOF and BOC, it remains valid even without publication.
 WHETHER or NOT the CPO 189-2013 was validly issued.

NO.

Under EO 140, CPRO shall be composed of its organic personnel, as approved by the DBM upon
recommendation of the DOF Secretary. Respondents were supposed to augment and reinforce the
existing organic personnel of CPRO. Yet, at the time of respondents' detail, CPRO had not been
formally organized. CPRO had no organic personnel that had been approved by the DBM upon
recommendation of the DOF Secretary. The DOF Secretary had yet to promulgate rules and
regulations and to prescribe procedures and processes to enable CPRO to effectively exercise its
powers and duties, as required by Section 4 of EO 140.

Under Section 8, Rule VII of the Omnibus Rules, a detail is temporary in nature. In fact, detail of
employees is only allowed for a maximum period for those occupying professional, technical, and
scientific positions. Section 2 of CSC Resolution No. 021181, dated 13 September 2002, 16 clarified
that employees are to be detailed for a maximum period of one year.

CPO 189-2013 did not provide for the period of respondents' detail. It only provided that the order "shall
be effective immediately and valid until sooner revoked," making the detail of respondents indefinite. it
should have been specified that the maximum period of respondents' detail should not exceed one
year.

DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, we PARTIALLY GRANT the petition. We sustain the validity of Executive Order No. 140.
We rule that the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the action for declaratory relief filed by
respondents. We further rule that Customs Personnel Order No. B-189-2013 was not validly issued.

SEPARATE OPINIONS
Concurring
● Peralta, Del Castillo
● Mendoza, JJ.,

Dissenting
● LEONEN, J.
In accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling in Tañada v. Tuvera , laws and executive
issuances shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of their publication in the Official
Gazette, or in a newspaper of general circulation. In this case, [Executive Order] No. 140 was published in
the 17 September 2013 issue of the broadsheet newspaper, Manila Bulletin. Thus, following the above legal
standards, it is clear that [Executive Order] No. 140 has yet to take legal effect on 2 October 2013. In other
words, the [Bureau of Customs'] issuance of [Customs Personnel Order] No. B-189-2013 on 17 September
2013 simply has no legal basis, and is therefore premature and patently invalid.