DENR Employees Union v. Abad, G.R. No.

204152, January 19, 2021

Facts:

 Budget Circular No. 2011-5 dated December 26, 2011 of the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) (25k ceiling on CAN incentive)
 COA issued Notice of Disallowance (ND) 
 DENREU filed an appeal seeking reconsideration of ND
 COA dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time or beyond the six (6)-month
reglementary period from receipt of the ND as allowed under the Revised Rules of
Procedure of the COA
 COA issued a Notice of Finality of Decision ordering the named persons liable to pay
their shares of the disallowed amount
 COA issued an Order of Execution dated January 11, 2018 instructing the DENR to
withhold payment of salaries or any amount due the concerned employees to settle
their liabilities subject of the disallowance.
 DBM Budget Circular No. 2011-5 dated December 26, 2011 was, in fact, published in the
Philippine Star, it was done only on February 25, 2012, or two months after the issuance
of the same
Issue/s:

 Constitutionality of DBM Budget Circular No. 2011-5

Ruling:

 Court says that they refrain from holding the DENR employees liable for refund of the
excess CNA incentives received. (Article 2 of the Civil Code)
 Budget Circular No. 2011-5 is not an internal rule limited only to a single
unit/department of the government, but it affects every government agency.

*the subject circular was, indeed, published, the publication came months after its
effectivity. Settled is the rule that a belated publication cannot have retroactive effect of
curing the infirmity attendant in the passage of the administrative regulation.41 Time
and again, the Court has held that the publication requirement on laws is part and
parcel of the constitutional mandate of due process.42 Its omission is tantamount to
denying the public of knowledge and information of the laws that govern it; hence, a
violation of due process. Effectivity of laws, therefore, depends on their publication.
Without such notice and publication, the conclusive presumption cannot apply for laws
and rules are to be binding only when their existence and contents are confirmed by a
valid publication. What is required by law, therefore, is prior publication. The fact that
the assailed circular herein was published in the Philippine Star on February 25, 2012, or
two months after the issuance of the same cannot be permitted to have any curative
effect, especially in light of the fact that it aims to impose restrictions on the grant of the
CNA Incentive for the previous fiscal year 2011.* (Supporting notes)

 SC agrees with the petitioners’ position against the retroactive application of Budget
Circular No. 2011-5 to CNA incentives already released to the employees
 Petition is partially granted
 ND, decision, finality, order of execution are annulled and set aside
Philippine National Bank vs. Office of the President 252 SCRA 5G.R. No. 104528, January 18,
1996

Facts:
 Private respondents were buyers on installment of subdivision lots from Marikina
Village, Inc.
 the subdivision developer mortgaged the lots in favor of the petitioner, Philippine
National Bank. Unaware of this mortgage, private respondents duly complied with their
obligations as lot buyers and constructed their houses on the lots in question.
 Subdivision developer defaulted and PNP foreclosed on the mortgage
 Bank became owner of the lots as the highest bidder
 P.D. 957 was enacted after the subject mortgage was executed

Issues:
 Did the office of the Pres. make an error in applying P.D. 957? Law was enacted after the
subject mortgage was executed.
 Is PNB privy of the contracts between the subdv. Developer and the private
respondents?

Ruling:
 No, 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.
1. Social Justice must be upheld. (Law favors the weak)
2. Bank had a lot of resources to do “due diligence” in investigating the background
of their client/properties set as collateral
3. certain provisions of P.D. 957 constitute strong arguments in favor of the
retroactivity
A. Sec. 20. Time of Completion,
B. Sec. 21. Sales Prior to Decree
C. Sec. 23. Non-Forfeiture of Payments

 Yes, Section 18 of said law obliges petitioner Bank to accept the payment of the
remaining unpaid amortizations tendered by private respondents.

Sec. 18. Mortgages. - No mortgage on any unit or lot shall be made by the owner or
developer without prior written approval of the Authority, Such approval shall not be
granted unless it is shown that the proceeds of the mortgage loan shall be used for the
development of the condominium or subdivision project and effective measures have
been provided to ensure such utilization. The loan value of each lot or unit covered by
the mortgage shall be determined and the buyer thereof, if any, shall be notified before
the release of the loan. The buyer may, at his option, pay his installment for the lot or
unit directly to the mortgagee who shall apply the payments to the corresponding
mortgage indebtedness secured by the particular lot or unit being paid for, with a view
to enabling said buyer to obtain title over the lot or unit promptly after full payment
thereof. (emphasis supplied)

 Privity of contracts as a defense does not apply in this case for the law explicitly grants
to the buyer the option to pay the installment payment for his lot or unit directly to the
mortgagee (petitioner), which is required to apply such payments to reduce the
corresponding portion of the mortgage indebtedness secured by the particular lot or
unit being paid for. And, as stated earlier, this is without prejudice to petitioner Bank's
seeking relief against the subdivision developer.
 According to Justice Isagani Cruz: “Despite the impairment clause, a contract valid at the
time of its execution may be legally modified or even completely invalidated by a
subsequent law. If the law is a proper exercise of the police power, it will prevail over
the contract. Into each contract are read the provisions of existing law and, always, a
reservation of the police power as long as the agreement deals with a matter affecting
the public welfare.
 
 Such a contract, it has been held, suffers a congenital infirmity, and this is its
susceptibility to change by the legislature as a postulate of the legal order.”
People of the Philippines vs. Judge Donato, G.R. No. 79269, June 5, 1991
Facts:

 Bilog agreed to remain in legal custody and face trial before court (G.R. 76009)
 There is prima facie evidence that supports the claim of the petitioner
 The accused has evaded the authorities for thirteen years and was an escapee from
detention when arrested; (Chairman of CPP-NPA)
 He was not arrested at his residence as he had no known address;
 He was using the false name "Manuel Mercado Castro" at the time of his arrest and
presented a Driver's License to substantiate his false identity;
 The address he gave "Panamitan, Kawit, Cavite," turned out to be also a false address;
He and his companions were on board a private vehicle with a declared owner whose
identity and address were also found to be false;
 Pursuant to Ministry Order No. 1-A dated 11 January 1982 , a reward of P250,000.00
was offered and paid for his arrest

Issue/s:

 whether the right to bail may, under certain circumstances, be denied to a person who
is charged with an otherwise bailable offense, and whether such right may be waived

Ruling:
The SC ruled that Salas did waive his right to bail when he withdrew his petition for the issuance
of the WoHC. The contention of the defense that Salas merely agreed to be in custody and that
the same does not constitute a waiver of his right to bail is not tenable. His waiver to such right
is justified by his act of withdrawing his petition for WoHC.

Yes. Bail in the instant case is a matter of right. It is absolute since the crime is not a capital
offense, therefore prosecution has no right to present evidence. It is only when it is a capital
offense that the right becomes discretionary. However it was wrong for the Judge to change
the amount of bail from 30K to 50K without hearing the prosecution.

Republic Act No. 6968 approved on 24 October 1990, providing a penalty of reclusion perpetua
to the crime of rebellion, is not applicable to the accused as it is not favorable to him.

Accused validly waived his right to bail in another case (petition for habeas corpus).
Agreements were made therein: accused to remain under custody, whereas his co-detainees
Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion will be released immediately, with a condition that
they will submit themselves in the jurisdiction of the court. Said petition for HC was dismissed.
Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law. Ergo, there was a
waiver. We hereby rule that the right to bail is another of the constitutional rights which can be
waived. It is a right which is personal to the accused and whose waiver would not be contrary
to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with
a right recognized by law.