Case Digest

Tañada V Tuvera
G.R No. 63915; April 24, 1985

Facts:

Tañada et al, the herein petitioners filed a petition to compel the

respondents, Tuvera et al to publish the Presidential Issuances in the
Official Gaze=e. They argued that the publication of those issuances is
necessary for their activity as provided for under the law. That the
publication is important for due process and the public’s right to be
informed of the laws that govern them.

Issue:

Whether or not the publication of the presidential issuances in the Official

Gaze=e is necessary for their effectivity.

Ruling:

Yes, Supreme Court held that publication of the presidential

issuances in the official gaze=e is necessary. Presidential issuances of a
public nature or of general applicability needed to be published for it to be
effective as provided for under the law. This includes presidential
issuances that impose fines, penalties, or burdens on the people, as well as
other issuances that apply to particular persons or groups. Art. 2 of the
Civil Code provides that laws shall take effect after fifteen days following
their publication in the Official Gaze=e, but this does not preclude the
requirement of publication even if the law itself provides for its effectivity
date. Supreme Court further declared that, presidential issuances of
general application which have not been published shall have no force and
effect.
 Republic V Express Telecommunication Co.
G.R No. 147096 ; January 15, 2002

Facts:

Bayantel applied for a certificate of public convenience with the NTC

to install, operate and maintain a digital cellular mobile telephone
system/service. But before the NTC could grant the same, the frequencies
were already granted to others, resulting in the archiving of Bayantel’s
application without prejudice to its reinstatement should a frequency
becomes available. Sometime after, Bayantel filed a motion to revive its
application with the NTC citing available frequencies. Extelcom oppose
such application arguing that NTC should have applied the revised rules
and not the 1978 rules of procedure. Accordingly, NTC acted on their
prerogative granting the application of Bayantel applying Sec. 3 of Rule 15
of 1978 Rules of procedure. Extelcom filed an action before the CA. CA
assailed the NTC’s resolution thus the present case.

Issue:

Whether of not the revised rules of procedure should be the governing rule
despite its lack of publication.

Ruling:

No, Supreme Court ruled that the revised rules is an Administrative

Orders and is therefore needed to be published for their effectivity. The
publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since the very
purpose of the publication is to inform the public of the contents of the law.
The court emphasize that the publication is a condition precedent before
statutes, rules or regulations take effect. The rules of practice and
procedure of the NTC fall squarely within the scope of these laws.
Administrative rules and regulations must be published if their purpose is
to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. The
only exceptions provided is if the issuances are of internal in nature, those
le=ers of instructions which serves as guidelines in the performance of
subordinates duties. Therefore, it is the 1978 rules that governs and not the
revised one for the lack of publication.
 Rodolfo De Jesus, et al V COA
G.R No. 109023, August 12, 1998

Facts:

Prior to July 1, 1989, De Jesus, et al are employees receiving honoraria as

board members of Local Water Utilities Administration. On July 1, 1989 ,
RA 6758 took effect which standardize the salary rates but other additional
compensations were exempted from consolidation. Later on DBM issued
Circular No. 10 which provides for the discontinuance of all compensation
granted on top of basic salary whether in cash or in kind. And that
payment of such kind of compensation after the order shall be considered
an illegal disbursement of public funds. Pursuant to such order, Leonardo
Jamoralin as the corporate auditor disallowed on post audit, the payment
of honoraria to De Jesus, et al. De Jesus filed an appeal before COA but was
dismissed.

Issue:

Whether or not the DBM circular is valid not having been published in the
Official Gaze=e.

Ruling:

Supreme Court held in favor of the petitioners. Accordingly, DBM-

CCC No. 10 is void for failing to adhere with the publication requirement
as enunciated in Tanada V Tuvera. DBM Circular No. 10 is in the nature of
an administrative circular the purpose of which is to enforce or implement
an existing law. Therefore, DMB Circular No. 10 must go through the
requisite of publication in the Official Gaze=e or Newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines to become effective and enforceable.
Accordingly, only those interpretative or internal regulation are exempted
from such requirement and since the circular completely disallows
payment of allowances and other additional compensation to government
officials and employees, so therefore the affected ones should have been
apprised and alerted by the publication of the subject circular on the
Official Gaze=e or Newspaper of General Circulation.
 NASECORE V ERC
G.R. No. 163935, Feb. 2, 2006

Facts:

Congress enacted RA 9136 which created the Energy Regulatory

Commission. Sec. 36 of RA 9136 directed all distribution utilities to file with
ERC an application for approval of their unbundled rates. Meralco applied
for an increase in generation charge and was approved by ERC and
ordered to be effective immediately. NASECORE, et al. filed a petition for
certiorari to nullify said ERC order. They argued among others that there
was no publication of the said order and was therefore ineffective. ERC
contends that it is not based on EPRIA but on GRAM rules.

Issue:

Whether or not ERC commi=ed grave abuse of discretion in increasing the

charge of MERALCO without publication.

Ruling:

Yes, ERC commi=ed grave abuse of discretion. Supreme Court

unanimously held that the assailed order issued by ERC is in violation of
Section 4, Rule 3 of IRR of IPERA. The Court explained that, contrary to the
stance taken by respondents, the amended applicationof Meralco for an
increase in its generation charge was covered by Section 4(e), Rule 3 of the
IRRo f t h e E P I R A . T h i s r u l e c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n a n y c l e a r e r
with respect to its coverage, as itr e f e r r e d t o
“any application or petition for rate adjustment or for any
r e l i e f a f f e c t i n g t h e consumers” without making any distinctions.
Hence, falling within the contemplation of therule was any
application or petition that would result in an adjustment in the total price
(retailrate) paid by the end-users, whether this adjustment was occasioned
by a change in the chargesfor generation, transmission, distribution,
supply, or some other factor.
 Cawad v Abad et al
G.R No. 207145; July 28, 2015

Facts:

RA 7305 also known as the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers was
signed into law on March 25, 1992. On September 3, 2012, the respondents
DBM and CSC issued DBM-CSC Joint Circular No. 1, Series of 2012, to
prescribe rules on the grant of Step Increments. The joint circular provided
that “an official or employee authorized to be granted longevity pay under
an existing law is not eligible for the grant of Step Increment due to length
of service. ” Then on November 29, 2012, DBM and DOH issued DBM-
DOH Joint Circular No. 1 Series of 2012, which provided for the definition
of hazard pay and that it may only be granted to public health workers
(PHWs) if the nature of their duties and responsibilities actually expose
them to danger. It also stated that the longevity pay should be granted only
when the following criteria are met:

a. The PHW holds a position in the agency plantilla of regular

positions; and
b. He/She has rendered at least satisfactory performance and has not
been found guilty of any administrative or criminal case within all
rating periods covered by the 5-year period.

In short, the joint circulars diminished and limited the benefits granted by
the Magna Carta to PHWs.
According to Section 35 of RA 7305, the rules and regulations
implementing the provisions of the act should take effect only after thirty
days after publication in a newspaper of general circulation. The DBM-
DOH joint circular was made effective on January 1, 2013, just three days
after it was published in a newspaper of general circulation on December
29, 2012.

Issue:

Was the joint circular valid despite it not meeting the publication
requirement of RA 7305?
Ruling:

Yes. The joint circular did not modify, amend, or supplant the revised IRR.
It gave no real consequences to what the law itself has already prescribed.
As an exception to the rule on publication, interpretative regulations which
“need nothing further than their bare issuance for they give no real
consequence more than what the law itself already prescribed” need not be
published. These kinds of regulations do not need to be published to be
effective since they do not add anything to the law and do not affect
substantial rights of any person.
 Association of International Shipping Lines V Secretary of Finance
G.R No. 222239; January 15, 2020

Facts:

RA 9337 was enacted, amending select provisions of the 1997 National

Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).In relation to these amendments, then CIR
Lilian Hefti issued Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 31-2008

(RMC 31-2008) dated January 30, 2008. It sought to "

clarify certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as
amended (Code), as it applies to shipping companies and their agents as
well as their suppliers to ensure that the law is properly implemented and
taxes are properly collected, in a manner that aligns with acceptable
business practices”.

Petitioners initiated the present petition for declaratory relief,

this time, challenging Section 4.4 of RR 15-2013.Petitioners argued that
Section 4.4 of RR 15-2013 invalidly subjects demurrage and detention
fees collected by international shipping carriers to regular corporate
income tax rate. This very same imposition had been previously declared
invalid. Section 4.4 of RR 15-2013 should not, therefore, be given effect by
reason of res judicata

Respondents answered that RR 15-2013 does not expand the provisions of

RA 10378. It simply clarifies what constitutes Gross Philippine Billings
(GPB) such that anything outside the definition of GPB is subject to the
regular income tax rate for resident foreign corporations. Thus, the law
need not specifically mention demurrage or detention fees as among those
falling outside the definition of GPB.

Issue:

Whether or not RR 15-2003 is a valid revenue regulation.

Ruling:

Yes, RR 15-2013 is a valid revenue regulation since it only interpretative in

nature. RR 15-2013 merely sums up the rules by which international
carriers may avail of preferential rates or exemption from income tax on
their gross revenues derived from the carriage of persons and their excess
baggage based on the principle of reciprocity or an applicable tax treaty or
international agreement to which the Philippines is a signatory.
Interpretative regulations are intended to interpret, clarify or explain
existing statutory regulations under which the administrative body
operates. Their purpose or objective is merely to construe the statute being
administered and purport to do no more than interpret the statute.

Indeed, when an administrative rule is merely interpretative in nature, its

applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance, for it gives no
real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed.

As such, RR 15-2013 need not pass through a public hearing or

consultation, get published, nay, registered with the U.P. Law Center for its
effectivity.
 Miguel Luis Villafuerte V Constantino Cordial
G.R No. 222450; July 7, 2020

Facts:

Respondents, as incumbent officials of Caramoan, Camarines Sur, were

administratively charged with Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service on July 18, 2014.
The complaint was lodged before the Sangguaning Panlalawigan of
Camarines Sur. In said Complaint, it was alleged that the respondents,
through the Sangguniang Bayan of Caramoan, Camarines Sur, passed
Resolution No. 48 which requested for the removal of Task Force Sagip
Kalikasan in the entire Municipality of Caramoan, Camarines Sur without
the conduct of deliberation.

Prior to said incident, the Task Force Sagip Kalikasan conducted an

inspection in Barangay Gata, Caramoan, Camarines Sur because of
reported mining activities. Upon inspection, the team found 30 people
engaged in illegal mining activities, holes where minerals were being
extracted, and machinery and equipment for mining and extraction. The
Chief of the Task Force, Mabulo, asked those involved if they had the
necessary permits; and as they failed to show him any, he asked them to
cease from operating.

Issue:

Whether or not the non-publication of Resolution No. 13-2013 divested the

Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Camarines Sur of jurisdiction over the
proceedings of the case.

Ruling:

The publication requirement on laws accomplishes the constitutional

mandate of due process. In the 1985 and 1986 Tañada cases, the Court
explained that the object of Article 2 of the Civil Code is to give notice to
the public of the laws to allow them to properly conduct themselves as
citizens. That omission of publication of laws 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, thus, depends on their
publication. Without such notice and publication, the conclusive
presumption cannot apply.

Jurisdiction over the subject ma=er, on the other hand, is conferred by law
and is determined by the allegations in the complaint.

Sections 61 and 62 of the LGC, as well as Sections 125 and 126 of its
Implementing Rules and Regulations or Administrative Order No. 270,
provide that the Sangguaning Panlalawigan of Camarines Sur has
jurisdiction over complaints filed against any erring municipal official
within its jurisdiction. Upon the filing of said complaint, the Sangguaning
Panlalawigan shall require the filing of the respondent's verified answer.
Investigation shall ensue accordingly.

In this case, the allegations in the Complaint filed by Mabulo, et al. against
the respondents, as local municipal officials of Caramoan, Camarines Sur,
vested the Sangguaning Panlalawigan of Camarines Sur of jurisdiction over
the case.

As it is, the RTC failed to discern the import of the publication

requirement. Publication or lack of it is relevant in determining the
observance of due process.
 DENR Employees Union V Abad
G.R No. 204152; July 19, 2021

Facts:

On December 26, 2011, the DBM issued the assailed Budget Circular No. 20
11-5 to prescribesupplemental guidelines on the grant of the Collective
Negotiation Agreement (CNA) Incentive for the Fiscal
Year 2011. Particularly, the circular provided that "the CNA
incentive for FY 2011 shall be determined based on the amount of savings
generated by an agency following the guidelines herein, but not to exceed
P25,000.00 per qualified employee."

It, likewise, provided that it shall take effect immediately. The CNA
Incentive is given to all employees of NGAs, SUCs, LGUs, GOCCs,
and GFIs in the county. Prior issuances of CNA Incentives does not place
maximum allowable amount of P25,000 per qualified employee.

Issue:

Whether or not the Budget Circular No. 2011-5 does need prior publication
to take effect.

Ruling:

No, Budget Circular No. 2011-5 cannot take effect immediately.

The Supreme Court held that when an administrative rule goes beyond
merely providing for the means that can facilitate or render least
cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially increases the
burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to those
directly affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter, to be duly informed,
before that new issuance is given the force and effect of law. In this case,
the subject circular actually increases the burden of those governed by
placing a maximum allowable amount of P25,000 per qualified employee
which were not imposed on prior issuances. The circular encompassed not
merely the personnel of a particular administrative agency, such as the
DENR in this case, but employees of all NGAs, SUCs, LGUs, GOCCs, and
GFIs in the county. Its publication, therefore, cannot be dispensed with.
Therefore, Budget Circular No. 2011-5 cannot take effect immediately.
 Peralta V Civil Service Commission
G.R No. 95832; August 10, 1992

Facts:

Petitioner was appointed Trade-Specialist II on 25 September 1989 in the

Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). His appointment was classified
as "Reinstatement/Permanent". 120889 petitioner received his initial salary,
covering the period from September to October 1989. Since he had no
accumulated leave credits, DTI deducted from his salary the amount
corresponding to his absences during the covered period, inclusive of
Saturdays and Sundays. Petitioner sent a memorandum to Amando T.
Alvis (Chief, General Administrative Service) inquiring as to the law on
salary deductions, if the employee has no leave credits. Amando T. Alvis
answered petitioner's query in a memorandum citing Chapter 5.49 of the
Handbook of Information on the Philippine Civil Service which states that
"when an employee is on leave without pay on a day before or on a day
immediately preceding a Saturday, Sunday or Holiday, such Saturday,
Sunday, or Holiday shall also be without pay. Petitioner sent a le=er
addressed to CSC Chairman Patricia Santo Tomas raising the question: 'Is
an employee who was on leave of absence without pay on a day before or
on a day time immediately preceding a Saturday, Sunday or Holiday, also
considered on leave of absence without pay on such Saturday, Sunday or
Holiday? Petitioner: he cannot be deprived of his pay or salary
corresponding to the intervening Saturdays, Sundays or Holidays (in the
factual situation posed), and that the withholding (or deduction) of the
same is tantamount to a deprivation of property without due process of
law. Respondent Commission promulgated Resolution No. 90- 497, ruling
that the action of the DTI in deducting from the salary of petitioner, a part
thereof corresponding to six (6) days is in order.

Issue:

Whether or not the CSC resolution is valid.

Ruling:

No. The court ruled that the construction by the respondent Commission of
R.A. 2625 is not in accordance with the legislative intent. R.A. 2625
specifically provides that government employees are entitled to fifteen (15)
day vacation leave of absence with full pay and fifteen (15) days sick leave
with full pay, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays in both cases.
Thus, the law speaks of the granting of a right and the law does not
provide for a distinction between those who have accumulated leave
credits and those who have exhausted their leave credits in order to enjoy
such right. The fact remains that government employees, whether or not
they have accumulated leave credits, are not required by law to work on
Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays and thus they cannot be declared absent
on such non-working days. They cannot be or are not considered absent on
non-working days; they cannot and should not be deprived of their salary
corresponding to said non-working days just because they were absent
without pay on the day immediately prior to, or after said non-working
days. A different rule would constitute a deprivation of property without
due process
 Freedom from Debt Coalition V ERC
G.R No. 161113; June 15, 2004

Facts:

Meralco filed for an increase in rates with ERC. Likewise, they prayed ex
parte for the grant of a provisional authority to implement the increase
requested according to the schedule. ERC issued an order provisionally
approving such increase and set the schedule for the hearing. On the
scheduled hearing date, the ERC did not revoke the provisional granted to
the Meralco per its prior order. Freedom from Debt Coalition did not move
for reconsideration but filed an instant case, petitioning the order of ERC is
void for having been issued without legal or statutory authority. It also
contends that Rule 3 Section 4 of the IRR of the EPIRA is unconstitutional
for being an undue delegation of legislative power. It further asserts that
the order is void for having been issued by the ERC with grave abuse of
discretion and manifest bias.

Issue:

Whether the ERC’s grant of provisional increase of MERALCO is tainted

with grave abuse of discretion.

Ruling:

ERC’s failure to consider the oppositions and motions already on record in

issuing the challenged Order and to act upon other relevant motions has
such grave due process implications that render the Order void,
independently of its breach of its own rules. Thus, should the case be
simply remanded to the ERC without further action by the Court, the
defects would not be cleansed and they would retain their potency and still
serve as solid basis to nullify the challenged Order and all other issuances
of the ERC which would be infected by the infirmities. Indeed, such a
denouement would be inescapable once the application is elevated again to
this Court in connection with the infirm issuances. Clearly then, a remand
is not in the best interest of MERALCO and the ERC. Rather, it is to their
advantage, same as with the consumers, that they begin again on a clean
slate. The record shows that MERALCO failed to comply with the
publication requirement prescribed by the IRR. What the IRR requires to be
published is the application itself. In fact, it even requires the applicant to
submit the "certification of the notice of publication" of the "application or
petition for rate adjustment" together with the application/petition to the
ERC.

The publication and comment requirements, like the 30-day period also
imposed in Section 4(e), Rule 3 of the IRR, are in keeping with some of the
avowed policies of the EPIRA. These are to protect the public interest vis-à-
vis the rates and services of electric utilities and other providers of electric
power, to ensure transparent and reasonable prices of electricity in a
regime of free and fair competition and full public accountability for
greater operational and economic efficiency, to enhance the
competitiveness of Philippine products in the global market, and to balance
the interests of the consumers and the public utilities providing electric
power through the fair and non-discriminatory treatment of the two
sectors.

Clearly, therefore, although the new requirements are procedural in

character, they represent significant reforms in public utility regulation as
they engender substantial benefits to the consumers. It is in this light that
the new requirements should be appreciated and their observance
enforced.