People v Veridiano Digest

G.R. L-62243, October 12, 1984

Effectivity of laws

At issue in this case is the applicability of BP 22 which was circulated a month after private respondent issued the dishonored check.

Facts:

1.             On or about the 2nd week of May 1979, private respondent Benito Go Bio Jr. issued a check amounting to P200, 000 to one Filipinas Tan. Said check was subsequently dishonored and despite repeated demands, the respondent failed to make the necessary payment. Hence, the filing of charges against him for violation of B.P. 22 or the Bouncing Check law.

2.             Go Bio filed a Motion to Quash alleging that the information did not charge an offence on ground that BP 22 has not yet taken effect when the offense was committed on May 1979. Said law took into effect on June 29, 1979. The prosecution opposed the motion and contended that the date of the dishonor of the check -- September 26, 1979, is the date of the commission of the offense, hence BP 22 is applicable.

3.             The respondent judge granted Go Bio's motion and dismissed the criminal action hence, this petition. Petitioner contends that BP 22 was published in the Official Gazette on April 4, 1979, and hence became effective 15 days thereafter or on April 24, 1979. PR contends however that said publication was only released on June 14, 1979 but since the questioned check was issued about the second week of May 1979, then he could not have violated BP 22 because it was not yet released for circulation at the time.

Issue: W/N BP 22 was already in effect when the offense was committed

NO. 

The penal statute in question was circulated only on June 14, 1979 and not on its printed date of April 9, 1979. Publication of the law is necessary so that the public can be apprised of the contents of a penal statute before it can be bound by it. If a statute had not been published before its violation, then in the eyes of the law there was no such law to be violated. Hence, the accused could not have committed the alleged crime. In effect, when the alleged offense was committed there was still no law penalizing it. If BP 22 intended to make the printed date of issue of the Official Gazette as the point of reference in the determination of its the effectivity, it could have provided a special effectivity provision. Finally, the term "publication" in BP 22 must be given the ordinary accepted meaning, to make known to the people in general.

Yaokasin v Commissioner Digest

GR No. 84111, December 22, 1989

Facts: The Philippine Coast Guard seized 9000 sacks of refined sugar owned by petitioner Yaokasin, which were then being unloaded from the M/V Tacloban, and turned them over to the custody of the Bureau of Customs. On June 7, 1988, the District Collector of Customs ordered the release of the cargo to the petitioner but this order was subsequently reversed on June 15, 1988. The reversal was by virtue ofCustoms Memorandum Order (CMO) 20-87 in implementation of the Integrated Reorganization Plan under P.D. 1, which provides that in protest and seizure cases where the decision is adverse to the government, the Commissioner of Customs has the power of automatic review.

Petitioner objected to the enforcement of Sec. 12 of the Plan and CMO 20-87 contending that these were not published in the Official Gazette. The Plan which was part of P.D. 1 was however published in the Official Gazette.

Issue: W/n circular orders such as CMO 20-87 need to be published in the OG to take effect

NO.

Article 2 of the Civil Code does not apply to circulars like CMO 20-87 which is an administrative order of the Commissioner of Customs addressed to his subordinates, the custom collectors. Said issuance requiring collectors of customs to comply strictly with Section 12 of he Plan, is addressed only to particular persons or a class of persons (the customs collectors), hence no general applicability. As held in Tanada v. Tuvera, “It need not be published, on the assumption that it has been circularized to all concerned.”

Moreover, Commonwealth Act. 638 provides an enumeration of what shall be published in the Official Gazette. It provides that besides legislative acts, resolutions of public nature of Congress, executive, administrative orders and proclamations shall be published except when these have no general applicability.

MRCA v. CA Digest

Facts: The Petitioner MRCA Inc., filed a complaint against private respondents spouses (who were defendants in said civil case). Said case was dismissed by the trial court due to the non-payment of proper filing fees when petitioner failed to include include in the complain the amount of moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses sought to be recovered.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed said ruling, hence the petitioner comes to SC by petition for review. Petitioner contends that the Manchester ruling does not apply to the case since said court decision was not published in the Official Gazette. It should be noted that petitioner filed said complaint ten months after the promulgation of the Manchester ruling.

Issue: w/n court rulings need to be published in the Official Gazette order to be effective

HELD: NO.

Publication in the Official Gazette is not a prerequisite for the effectivity of a court ruling even if it lays down a new rule or procedure. It is a well-established doctrine that the procedure of the court may be changed at any time and become effective at once so long as it does not affect or change vested rights. (Aguillon v Dir. of Lands)

As such, the court granted the petition and held that the Manchester ruling should apply to the case of the petitioner though it was modified by the Sun Insurance case where the court allowed the payment of docket fees within a reasonable period but not beyond the reglamentary period. Petitioner was allowed to amend the complaint and specify therein the amount of damages it seeks from defendant and pay the proper filing fees