Pesigan v.

Angeles Digest

GR L-64279
Civil law, when Laws take effect
Facts: Petitioners Anselmo and Marcelo Pesigan, carabao dealers transported on April 2. 1982,
twenty-six (26) carabaos & a calf from Camarines Norte with Batangas as its destination. They were
provided with health certificates from the provincial veterinarian and three (3) other permits attesting
that the cattle was not part of lose, stolen or questionable animals.
Despite this, the said cattle was confiscated by respondents Zenarosa and Miranda, who were
respectively the police station commander and provincial veterianarian of Basud, Camarines Norte.
The confiscation was on the basis of said EO 626-A which was dated October 25, 1980 but was
published in theOfficial Gazette on J une 14, 1982.
Executive Order 626-A provides, "that henceforth, no carabao, regardless of age, sex, physical
condition or purpose and no carabeef shall be transported from one province to another. The
carabaos or carabeef transported in violation of this Executive Order as amended shall be subject
to confiscation and forfeiture by the government to be distributed ... to deserving farmers through
dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit, in the case of carabaos".
The Pesigans filed an action for replevin against herein respondents for the recovery of the subject
cattle but this could not be executed by the sheriff. Subsequently, the judge dismissed the case for
lack of cause of action. Hence, the petitioners filed an appeal to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court.
Issue: Whether or not Executive Order No. 626-A dated October 25, 1980, providing for the
confiscation and forfeiture by the government of cattle transported from one province to
another, can be enforced even before its actual publication in the Official Gazette of J une 14,
1982
HELD: NO
The Supreme Court held that EO 626-A is a penal regulation published more than two months after
the confiscation of the cattle or in June 14, 1982. Hence, it became effective only fifteen days
thereafter as provided in Article 2 of the Civil Code. It should therefore not be enforced against the
petitioners.
Publication is necessary to apprise the public of the contents of the regulations and make the said
penalties binding on the persons affected thereby. (People v Que Po). 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.
Note: The word "laws" in Article 2 of the NCC also includes circulars and regulations which prescribe
penalties.



People v. Veridiano Digest

Civil Law, When laws take effect, Publication of laws
Issue: w/n BP 22 which was circulated a month after private respondent issued the
dishonored check is applicable
Facts: On 2nd week of May in 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 repreated
demands, the respondent failed to make the necessary payment hence the filing of charges against
him for violation of BP 22 or the Bouncing Check law.
Go Bio filed a Motion to Quash alleging that the information did not charge an offense 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.
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
HELD: NO. It is proved that the penal statute in question was made public or 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 and or penalties 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. When the
alleged offense was committed there was still no law penalizing it.
The term "publication" in BP 22 must be given the ordinary accepted meaning -- or to make known to
the people in general. Moreover, if BP 22 intended to make the printed date of issue of the Gazette
as the point of reference in the determination of its the effectivity, it could have provided a special
effectivity provision.






TITLE: Tanada v Tuvera
CITATION: L-63915, April 24, 1985| 136 SCRA 27
FACTS:
Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus in compelling respondent public officials to publish and/ or cause
the publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential decrees, letter of instructions, general
orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders.

The general rule in seeking writ of mandamus is that it would be granted to a private individual only in
those cases where he has some private or particular interest to be subserved, or some particular right to
be protected, independent of that which he holds with the public at large," and "it is for the public
officers exclusively to apply for the writ when public rights are to be subserved.
The legal capacity of a private citizen was recognized by court to make the said petition for the reason
that the right sought to be enforced by petitioners herein is a public right recognized by no less than the
fundamental law of the land.
ISSUE: Whether publication in the Official Gazette is still required considering the clause in Article 2
unless otherwise provided.
HELD:
Unless it is otherwise provided refers to the date of effectivity and not with the publication
requirement which cannot be omitted as public needs to be notified for the law to become effective.
The necessity for the publication in the Official Gazette of all unpublished presidential issuances which
are of general application, was affirmed by the court on April 24, 1985. This is necessary to provide the
general public adequate notice of the various laws which regulate actions and conduct as citizens.
Without this, there would be no basis for Art 3 of the Civil Code Ignorance of the law excuses no one
from compliance therewith.

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished
presidential issuances which are of general application, and unless so published, they shall have no
binding force and effect.