Case Number: 41

Astorga v. Villegas; 56 SCRA 714 [1974]

Petitioner: Herminio Astorga

Respondents: Antonio J. Villegas

A. Facts of the case:

 House passed the Revised Manila City Charter on third reading and submitted the
bill to Senate for concurrence.

 On first reading, Senator Roxas had certain amendments about the City Engineer
instead of the President Pro-tempore succeeding the Vice Mayor.

 Senator Tolentino also had proposed some amendment. Upon discussion of the bill,
the Senate adopted Tolentino’s amendments but did not act on Roxas’. Such is
written in the journal.

 Senate returned the bill to the House for inclusion of the amendments, but in the bill
submitted to House, the amendments included and said to be approved therein
were Roxas’, not Tolentino’s.

 Not privy to the mistake, House made copies of the bill, and sent one to the
President. Pres. signed bill into law.

B. Issue:

1. Whether, the enrolled bill doctrine or the journal entry should be adhered to.

C. Held:

It is the journal entry that should be adhered to the case. The enrolled bill doctrine provides
that despite clerical errors in the enrolled bill, its ratification gives it enforceable authority.
The journal entry rule, meanwhile, follows the agreed upon decisions of the committees.
Though the court had deliberated on which between the enrolled bill doctrine and journal
entry rule should be followed, the entry journal rule in this case prevailed.
Case Number: 42
Pesigan v. Angeles; G.R. No 64279, April 30, 1984
Petitioners: Anselmo L. Pesigan, Marcelino L. Pesigan,
Respondents: Judge Domingo Medina Angeles

A. Facts of the case:

 Carabao dealers, Anselmo L. Pesigan and Marcelo L. Pesigan, transported in the

evening of April 2, 1982 twenty-six carabaos and a calf from Sipocot, Camarines Sur
to Padre Garcia, Batangas. They had health certificate from the
provincial veterinarian, a permit to transport large cattle, and three certificates of
inspection – one from the Constabulary command, one from the Bureau of Animal
Industry and one from the mayor of Sipocot.

 While passing at Basud, Camarines Norte, the town's police station commander,
Lieutenant Arnulfo V. Zenarosa, and provincial veterinarian, Doctor Bella S.
Miranda, confiscated their carabaos.

 The confiscation was based on the Executive Order No. 626-A which provides "that
henceforth, no carabao, regardless of age, sex, physical condition or purpose and no
carabeef shall be transported from one province to another.

B. Issue:

1. Whether or not, the executive order is enforceable even before its publication in the
Official Gazette.

C. Held:

The executive order is not enforceable. The said executive order should not be enforced
against the Pesigans on April 2, 1982 because, as already noted, it is a penal
regulation published more than two months later in the Official Gazette dated June 14,
1982. It became effective only fifteen days thereafter as provided in article 2 of the Civil
Code and section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code.

The word "laws" in article 2 (article 1 of the old Civil Code) includes circulars and
regulations which prescribe penalties. Publication is necessary to apprise the public of the
contents of the regulations and make the said penalties binding on the persons affected
thereby.

That ruling applies to a violation of Executive Order No. 626-A because its confiscation and
forfeiture provision or sanction makes it a penal statute. Justice and fairness dictate that the
public must be informed of that provision by means of publication in the Gazette before
violators of the executive order can be bound thereby.

In the instant case, the livestock inspector and the provincial veterinarian of Camarines
Norte and the head of the Public Affairs Office of the Ministry of Agriculture were unaware
of Executive Order No. 626-A. The Pesigans could not have been expected to be cognizant of
such an executive order.
Case Number: 43

Victorias Milling Co. Inc. v. Social Security Commission, G.R. No. L-16704. [1962}

Petitioners: Victorias Milling Co. Inc.

Respondents: Social Security Commission

A. Facts of the Case

 The Social Security Commission issued its Circular No. 22 of the following tenor:

Effective November 1, 1958, all Employers in computing the premiums due the
System, will take into consideration and include in the Employee’s
remuneration all bonuses and overtime pay, as well as the cash value of other
media of remuneration. All these will comprise the Employee’s remuneration
or earnings, upon which the 3- 1/2% and 2-1/2% contributions will be based,
up to a maximum of P500 for any one month.

 Victorias Milling Company, Inc., through counsel, wrote the Social Security
Commission in effect protesting against the circular as contradictory to a previous
Circular No. 7, expressly excluding overtime pay and bonus in the computation of
the employers’ and employees’ respective monthly premium contributions, and
submitting, “In order to assist your System in arriving at a proper interpretation of
the term ‘compensation’ for the purposes of” such computation, their observations
on Republic Act 1161 and its amendment and on the general interpretation of the
words “compensation”, “remuneration” and “wages”.

 Counsel further questioned the validity of the circular for lack of authority on the
part of the Social Security Commission to promulgate it without the approval of the
President and for lack of publication in the Official Gazette.

B. Issue:

1. Whether or not, Circular No. 22 is a rule or regulation as contemplated in Section

4(a) of Republic Act 1161.

C. Held:
 No, the Commission’s Circular No. 22 is not a rule or regulation that needed the approval of
the President and publication in the Official Gazette to be effective, but a mere
administrative interpretation of the statute, a mere statement of general policy or opinion
as to how the law should be construed. The Circular purports merely to advice employers-
members of the System of what, in the light of the amendment of the law, they should
include in determining the monthly compensation of their employees upon which the social
security contributions should be based. The Circular neither needs approval from the
President nor publication in the Official Gazette.
Case Number: 44

Director of Forestry vs. Muñ oz; G.R. No. 25459, June 28, 1968

Petitioners: Pinagcamaligan Indo-Agro Development Corporation, Inc

Respondents: Hon. Macario Peralta, Jr., In His Capacity as The Secretary of National Defense; Hon.
Eneterio De Jesus, In His Capacity as Undersecretary Of National Defense; General Rigoberto
Atienza, In His Capacity As The Chief Of Staff; 2 Armed Forces Of The Philippines, Colonel Manuel V.
Reyes, In His Capacity As The Judge Advocate General, Armed Forces Of The Philippines; And The
Task Forces Commander, Task Force Preserve (Tabak Division), 1st Infantry Division, Fort
Magsaysay, Nueva Ecija,

A. Facts of the case:

 Piadeco wrote a request to grant "authority to cut, gather and remove timber" that
"in the absence of such authority or permit", it "shall cut, gather and remove timber
from the said area subject to the payment of regular forest charges and 300%
surcharge for unlawful cutting in accordance with the penal provisions" of Section
266 of the Tax Code.

 Acting Director J.L. Utleg told Piadeco that "pending meticulous study" of its
application for renewal of PWR 2065-New, his "office is not now in a position to
grant" the desired authority and "will consider any cutting, gathering and removal
of timber" from the land "to be illegal, hence, subject to the provisions of Section
266 of the National Internal Revenue Code."

 Piadeco also requested the Director to inform the Task Force Commander that it
"can be allowed to continue its logging operation within their private woodland"
subject to Section 266 of the Tax Code.

 The Acting Director J.L. Utleg notified the Task Force Commander, through the
Undersecretary of National Defense, that Piadeco "can conduct logging operations
within its private woodland, as it is a constitutional right on its part to use and enjoy
its own property and the fruits thereof" but that whatever timber cut therefrom
"should be subject to the payment not only of the regular charges but also of the
surcharges imposed by Section 266" of the Tax Code.
  This notwithstanding, the army authorities refused to heed Utleg's December 7,
1965 letter and stood pat on its posture not to allow Piadeco to conduct logging
operations.

B. Issue:

1. Whether, the government officials are not given authority and jurisdiction to stop
logging operations, construction of the roads, cutting, gathering and removing of timber
and other forest products from the said corporation's private woodland area.

C. Held:

The government officials were given authority and jurisdiction to stop logging operations,
construction of the roads, cutting, gathering and removing of timber and other forest
products from the said corporation's private woodland area. Piadeco’s title is not
registrable therefore he cannot conduct logging operations. Possession of forest lands, no
matter how long, cannot ripen into private ownership.
Number: 45

Shell Philippines, Inc., V. Central Bank of The Philippines, 162 SCRA 628 (1988)

Petitioners: Shell Philippines, Inc

Respondents: Central Bank of The Philippines

A. Facts of the Case:

 Congress approved the Act imposing a stabilization tax on consignments abroad (RA
6125), May 1, 1970.

 Shell Philippines exported seria residues, reaching $5 million reach of their by-
product petroleum,

 the Monetary Board issued its Resolution No. 47 to the stabilization tax effective
January 1, 1972.

 Under the Central Bank Circular No. 309, implemented by Resolution No. 47,
appellee had to pay the stabilization tax beginning January 1, 1972, which it did
under protest.

 The lower court sustained that the resolution as void.

 The trial court opined:

 Note that the law mentions both calendar year and fiscal year. Calendar year refers to
one year starting from January to December. Fiscal year, as it is usually and commonly
used, refers to the period covered between July 1 of a year to June 30 of the following
year. In using these two terms, it is the considered opinion of this Court that they
should be taken in the meaning where they are commonly and usually understood. So
that when an export product reaches an aggregate F.O.B. value of more than
$5,000,000.00 in a calendar year it becomes subject to the rates of tax in force during
the fiscal year following it reaching the said aggregate value.

The statute is clear and free from ambiguity so that an interpretation even
becomes unnecessary ... (Brief for Defendant-Appellant, pp. 34-35)

B. Issues:

1. Whether, Monetary Board Resolution No. 47 is null and void?

2. Which should prevail in case of discrepancy, the basic law or the rule and regulation
issued to implement said law?

C. Held:

Yes, the monetary board resolution is void as it imposes the tax mentioned in Republic Act
No. 6125 on the export seria residue of (plaintiff) the aggregate annual F.O.B., value of
which reached five million United States dollars in 1971 effective on January 1, 1972." The
said resolution runs counter to the provisions of R.A. 6125 which provides that "Any export
product the aggregate annual F.O.B. value of which shall exceed five million United States
dollars in any one calendar year during the effectivity of this Act shall likewise be subject to
the rates of tax in force during the fiscal year following it reaching the said aggregate value."

The rule or regulation should be within the scope of the statutory authority granted by the
legislature to the administrative agency. In case of discrepancy between the basic law and a
rule or regulation issued to implement said law, the basic law prevails because said rule or
regulation cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law (People v. Lim, 108
Phil. 1091)