Philippine Blooming Mills et al v SSS (1966), BARRERA,

J.
Petitioner: Philippine Bloomg Mills and Francisco Tong
as attorney-in-fact of 6 Japanese employees
Respondent: Social Security System
Concept: Publication and effectivity
Brief Facts: Phil Blooming Mills seeks a rebate of
contributions with respect to 6 previously terminated
Japanese technicians. The amended rules totally
disallowed this, but such was published after their
application. They question the applicability of the
amendment.
Doctrine: Art. 2 NCC does not apply if the law
explicitly states a provision as to effectivity.
FACTS:
1. Philippine Blooming Mills (PBM) employed 6
Japanese technicians from 1957 to 1958. It inquired on
their SSS coverage, and was informed that according to
the SSS Rules and Regulations, aliens employed in the
Philippines are compuslorily covered, subject to a
rebate of their contributions upon their departure from
the Philippines. In addition, their employers are also
entitled to the same rebate in behalf of the aliens
employed.
2. When the employment of the technicians was
terminated on October 7, 1958, PBM filed a claim for
the rebate of premiums paid.
3. SSS initially controverted the claim saying that the
rules require at least a 2 year membership before the
refunds would be allowed.
4. However, an amendment became effective on
January 14, 1958 which disallowed the return of the
premium contributions (but this was published on
November of the same year). This is questioned in the
SC, arguing that such was an impariment of obligation
of contract.
5. Prefatorily, the SC pointed out that the relationship
between the members and the SSS is not contractual-a contract requires mutual agreement by will. The SSS
Law requires compulsory coverage-- it is a legal
imposition pursuant to police power. The nonimpairment clause is inapplicable.
6. The Court instead characterized the issue based on
the SolGen's statement, as mentioned below.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the amended rules apply in
spite of the fact that the amendments were
published after the application.
RATIO:
1. YES, as the case falls under the exception to
the publication rule in Art. 2 of the Civil Code.
a. The SSS Law provides that the SSS may amend their
repeals, but such amendment shall not take effect until
and after approval by the President, in which case they
will be considered to take effect upon approval.

b. The questioned amendments were approved by the

President on Jan. 14, 1958, but they were published
November, after PBM's application.
c. Art. 2 of the Civil Code requires that laws be
published in the Official Gazette for the purpose of
determining their effectivity, but the statutes may
otherwise provide.
d. Here, the rules of the SSS provide that amendments
may take effect on the date of approval by the
President. The delayed publication in the Official
Gazette would not affect their effectivity.
DISPOSITIVE: SSS decision affirmed.
Tanada v Tuvera (1966), ESCOLIN, J.
Petitioner: Lorenzo Tanada, Abraham Sarmiento and
Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity and
Nationalism
Respondent: Hon. Juan Tuvera et al.
Concept: Publication and effectivity
Brief Facts: Petitioners pray that a number of
presidential issuances be published in the Official
Gazette, and invoke the Constitutional right to
information for this purpose.
Doctrine: Publication in the Official Gazette is
mandatory for the effectivity of the law
notwithstanding a provision for effectivity within the
law itself.
FACTS:
1. The petitioners file a petition for mandamus calling
for the publication of multiple presidential issuances in
the Official Gazette, citing the people's right to be
informed on matters of public concern enshrined in
Sec. 6, Art. IV of the 1973 Petition. They argue that
they have standing to file the petition as the subject of
the petition concerns a public right and its object
concerns a public duty.
2. The respondents, through the SolGen, aver that the
petitioners have no legal standing for they are not
aggrieved parties under Sec. 3, Rule 65 ROC. They also
argue that Art. 2's exception applies here, as the
questioned presidential issuances contain special
provisions as to effectivity.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the petitioners have legal
standing.
2. Whether or not publication in the Official
Gazette is mandatory for effectivity in spite of
the presidential issuances having dates for
effectivity.
RATIO:
1. YES, as the case involves a public right with a
corresponding public duty.
a. The court already held in Severino v Governor
General that when the question of mandmaus is one of
public right and the object is for a public duty, the
people are regarded as the real party-in-interest and he
need not show any legal or special interest in the
result.

TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | PROF. CARLOTA |1

b. This is especially true in the present case since the

right invoked here is a constitutionally protected right.
If the petitioners were not allowed to institute this
proceeding, it would be difficult to conceive of no other
person who could do so.
2. YES, as an imperative duty is imposed by our
laws, all in the name of due process.
a. Sec. 1 of CA 683 (the act that created the Official
Gazette) provides that the OG shall include executive
and administrative orders and proclamations, except
those which have no general applicability. The reason
for this is to inform the public of the laws which would
regulate their conduct.
b. The use of the word 'shall' imposes an imperative
duty. Hence the publication of such presidential
issuances is mandated by law, provided that they are
of general applicability, such as tax and revenue
measures. Such impose burdens for the people. In
contrast, some issuances are only for particular
persons-- they would be assumed that they were sent
to all individuals concerned.
c. The reason for this law is because of due process-before a person may be bound by law, he must first be
officially and specifically informed of its content.
d. The effect of this is that non-publication is
mandatory, but if a PD was already operative prior to
this declaration, then they would be considered as an
operative fact which has consequences which cannot
justly be ignored. All of this is in spite of the presence
of Art. 2 NCC.
DISPOSITIVE: PETITION GRANTED. Respondents to
publish all unpublished presidential issuances which
are of general application. Unpublished ones shall have
no binding force and effect.
QUALIFIED CONCURRING OPINION, PLANA, J.
(concurs on the point that notice is required for laws to
be effective)::
- The Constitution does not require the publication of
laws as a prerequisite for effectivity. Though notice of
laws is required, they need not be published in the
Official Gazette.
- As for CA 638, that law simply provided for the
establishment of the Official Gazette and the essentials
of its publication, sale and distribution, and
enumerates its content. Note that acts to be published
are only of those important ones of a public nature. Nor
does it require publication there as essential for the
effectivity of laws. CA 638 cannot be used to restrict
later statutes with provisions as to effectivity. Only the
Constitution can.
QUALIFIED CONCURRING OPINION, FERNANDO, J.
(same point of concurrence as Plana):
- Although a due process question would arise in a case
where a party is not aware of the existence of a law, it
does not mean that failure to publish the law in all

cases and under all circumstances would render such

bereft of binding force and effect.
- All that is required, as per Judge Learned Hand, is that
the law be ascertainable in some form. This does not
mean it ought to be published in the Official Gazette.
At any rate, there is protection against the imposition
of such laws, such as due process and the prohibition
against ex post facto laws.
- As applied, the NCC thus cannot possibly trump the
constitution or even a later legislative/executive act.
Publication in the OG should not lead to ineffectivity of
a law/issuance.
Phil. Association of Service Exporters v Torres and
Sarmiento (1992), GRINO-AQUINO, J.
Petitioner: Phil Association of Service Exporters
Respondent: Ruben Torres (DOLE Secretary), Jose
Sarmiento (POEA administrator)
Concept: Publication and effectivity
Brief Facts: In response to the growing abuses against
domestic helpers in Hong Kong, the DOLE took over the
recruitment procedure for all future domestic helpers
bound for Hong Kong. PASEI questions this, also
invoking non-publication in the National Administrative
Register as an argument.
Doctrine: Publication and filing in the National
Administrative Register is mandatory for administrative
rules.
FACTS:
1. PASEI is the largest national organization of private
employment and recruitment agencies duly licensed
and authorized by the POEA. It is in the business of
obtaining overseas employment for Filipino landbased
workers, including domestic helpers.
2. On June 1 1991, as a result of reports of abused
Filipino housemaids in Hong Kong, respondent
Secretary Torres issued a Department Order
temporarily suspending the recruitment by private
employment agencies of Filipino DHs going to Hong
Kong. The DOLE itself would take over that business via
the POEA. Both agencies issued memo circulars and
rules for that purpose.
3. On Sep 1991, PASEI filed a petition for prohibition
assailing the DOLE and POEA circular, arguing that
there was grave abuse of discretion in issuing the
circulars, that they were Unconstitutional, unfair, and
oppressive, and that the requirements of publication
and filing with the National Administrative Register
were not complied with.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the respondents acted with
grave abuse of discretion and/or in excess of
their rule-making authority in issuing the
circulars.
2. Whether or not the circulars are valid and
enforceable in spite of the lack of publication
and filing.

TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | PROF. CARLOTA |2

RATIO:

d. As such, there are established reasons for the

restriction as to domestic helpers in Hong Kong.

1. NO, completely within power, and cannot be

said to be unfair and oppressive given the
situation.
a. Art. 36 LC grants the Labor Secretary to restrict and
regulate recruitment and placement activities, while
has similar powers for overseas employment through
EO 797.
b. It must again be stressed that such delegation is not
per se unconstitutional, unreasonable and oppressive
given the growing complexity of modern society.
c. Note that the petitioners were not prohibited from
recruiting Filipino workers for overseas employment.
The only regulation is with respect to domestic helpers
in Hong Kong. It was meant to deal with the abuses
suffered by such workers in Hong Kong, especially
considering the general welfare clause of the
constitution.

2. NO, given the ruling in Tanada v Tuvera and

non-publication in the National Administrative
Register.
a. The Court applied the ruling and argumentation in
Tanada v Tuvera, and stressed that Secs. 3(1) and 4 of
the Revised Administrative Code require publication
and filing with the UP Law Center's National
Administrative Register prior to the effectivity of an
administrative issuance. The sole exception is in case
of imminent danger to public health, safety and
welfare.
b. Given the law at the time of the decision, nonpublication was fatal and rendered the circulars
unenforceable.
DISPOSITIVE: Prohibiton granted. Implementation of
questioned circulars is suspended pending compliance
with the publication and filing requirements.

TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | PROF. CARLOTA |3