LegRes Reviewer
he counsel of petitioners is
Plagiarism - the theft of another person’s language, thoughts, or ideas.
- According to Webster, to take (ideas, writings, etc.) from
(another) and pass them off as ones own
- The passing off of the work of another as ones own is an
indispensable element of plagiarism.
Code of Professional Responsibility
Chapter I. The Lawyer and Society
Canon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law of and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Chapter III. The Lawyer and the Courts
Canon 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Rule 10.02 – A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents
of a paper, the language or the argument of the opposing counsel, or the text of a
decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered
inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been
proved.
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL
CASTILLO
Issue: Whether or not, in writing the opinion for the Court in the Vinuya case,
Justice Del Castillo plagiarized the published works of authors Tams, Criddle-
Descent, and Ellis.
Held: The judicial system is based on the doctrine of stare decisis, which
encourages courts to cite historical legal data, precedents, and related studies in
their decisions. Only errors that are tainted with fraud, corruption, or malice are
subject of disciplinary action.
Nilo Hipos, Sr. vs RTC Judge Teodoro A. Bay
Counsel’s use of block quotation and quotation marks signifies that he intends to
make it appear that the passages are the exact words of the Court. Furthermore,
putting the words “Underscoring ours” after the text implies that, except for the
underscoring, the text is a faithful reproduction of the original. Petitioners took
specific statements from our Decision, carefully cutting off the portions, which
would expose the real import of our pronouncements.
purposely misleading this Court, in violation of Rule 10.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides:
Rule 10.02 A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the
contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel,
or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision
already rendered inoperative by repel or amendment, or assert as a fact
that which has not been proved.
Allied Bank Corporation v Potenciano Galanida
The memorandum prepared by Atty. Durano and the assailed Decision of the Labor
Arbiter, both misquoted the Supreme Courts ruling in Dosch v. NLRC. Galanidas
counsel lifted the erroneous phrase from one of the italicized lines in
the syllabus of Dosch found in the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA). The
syllabus of cases in official or unofficial reports of Supreme Court decisions or
resolutions is not the work of the Court, nor does it state this Courts decision. The
syllabus is simply the work of the reporter who gives his understanding of the
decision. The reporter writes the syllabus for the convenience of lawyers in reading
the reports. A syllabus is not a part of the courts decision. A counsel should not cite
a syllabus in place of the carefully considered text in the decision of the Court. In
the present case, Labor Arbiter Almirante and Atty. Durano began by quoting
from Dosch, but substituted a portion of the decision with a headnote from the
SCRA syllabus, which they even underscored. In short, they deliberately made the
quote from the SCRA syllabus appear as the words of the Supreme Court.
COMELEC V NOYNAY
In both the motion for reconsideration and the petition, Atty. Balbuena deliberately
made it appear that the quoted portions were our findings or rulings, or, put a little
differently, our own words. The truth is, the quoted portion is just a part of the
memorandum of the Court Administrator quoted in the decision. Rule 10.02 of
Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall
not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the text of a decision or authority.
Overview of the Philippine Legal System
In re Application of Max Shoop
Max Shoop applied an application to be admitted into the practice of law in the
Philippine Islands pursuant to Rules for the Examination of Candidates for
Admission to the Practice of Law, effective 1 July 1920. Max Shoop has practiced
more than 5 years in the highest court of New York.

RULE:
1. US state must confer the same privilege by comity on attorneys
admitted to practice in the Philippine Islands
2. Have practiced for at least 5 years in the SC of the US or in any
circuit court of appeal or district court, or in the highest court of any
State territory of the US
The rule of the New York court permits admission without examination, in the
discretion of the Appellate Division in several cases, among which are the
following:
1. Any person admitted to practice and who has practiced five years as a member
of the bar in the highest law court in any other state or territory of the American
Union or in the District of Columbia.
2. Any person admitted to practice and who has practiced five years in another
country whose jurisprudence is based on the principles of the English Common
Law.
One member of the bar of the Philippine Islands has been admitted to practice,
without examination, in the State of New York, and one member of the same bar
has been refused such admission, the latter being the more recent case.
The rulings of the New York court have not been brought to the attention of this
court authoritatively, but assuming that reports of such rulings by the New York
court are true, in view of the apparent conflict, it seems proper to enter upon the
consideration of whether or not under the New York rule as it exits the principle of
comity is established. It must be observed that under the rules of both jurisdictions,
admission in any particular case is in the discretion of the court. Refusal to admit in
any particular case is not necessarily conclusive as to the general principles
established by the rules.
(1) The Philippine Islands is an unorganized territory of the United States, under a
civil government established by the Congress.
(2) In interpreting and applying the bulk of the written laws of this jurisdiction, and
in rendering its decision in cases not covered by the letter of the written law, this
court relies upon the theories and precedents of Anglo- American cases, subject to
the limited exception of those instances where the remnants of the Spanish written
law present well-defined civil law theories and of the few cases where such
precedents are inconsistent with local customs and institutions.
(3) The jurisprudence of this jurisdiction is based upon the English Common Law in
its present day form of Anglo-American Common Law to an almost exclusive
extent.
(4) By virtue of the foregoing, the New York rule, given a reasonable interpretation,
permits conferring privileges on attorneys admitted to practice in the Philippine
Islands similar to those privileges accorded by the rule of this court.
Accordingly, the supporting papers filed by the applicant in this case showing to the
satisfaction of the court his qualifications as an attorney-at-law, his petition is
hereby granted and he is admitted to the practice of law in the Philippine Islands.
Our decision is based upon our interpretation of the New York rule, and it does not
establish a precedent which may be controlling on this court with respect to future
applications if our interpretation is not borned out by the future enforcement of
that rule by the New York court.
Civil Code
Article 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-
observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.
When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the
former shall be void and the latter shall govern.
Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when
they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.
Angara v Electoral Commission
The SC emphasized that in cases of conflict between the several
departments and among the agencies thereof, the judiciary, with the SC as the final
arbiter, is the only constitutional mechanism devised finally to resolve the conflict
and allocate constitutional boundaries.
Judicial supremacy is but the power of judicial review in actual and
appropriate cases and controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no one
branch or agency of the government transcends the Constitution, which is the
source of all authority.
1987 Constitution
Article VI, Section 26, Par. 2
(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three
readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been
distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the
President certifies to the necessity of the immediate enactment to meet a public
calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall
be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the
yeas and nays entered in the Journal.
Section 27
(1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be
presented to the President. If he approves the same he shall sign it;
otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the
House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its
Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-
thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it
shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it
shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the
Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes
of each House shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of
the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The
President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it
originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof, otherwise,
it shall become a law if he had signed it.
(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in
an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the
item or items to which he does not object.
Civil Code
Article 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their
publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall
take effect one year after such publication.
Tañada v Tuvera
The law mandates the publication of all presidential issuances “of a public nature”
or “of general applicability”. Obviously, presidential decrees that provide for fines,
forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwise impose a burden to the
people, such as tax and revenue measures, fall within this category. Other
presidential issuances, which apply only to particular persons or class of persons
such as administrative and executive orders, need not be published on the
assumption that they have been circularized to all concerned. It is needless to add
that the publication of presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general
applicability" is a requirement of due process.
Civil Code
Article 3. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.
Article 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.
Article 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-
observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.
CHAPTER 5 OPERATION AND EFFECT OF LAWS
Section 18. When Laws Take Effect. - Laws shall take effect after fifteen (15) days
following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette or in a
newspaper of general circulation, unless it is otherwise provided.
Section 19. Prospectivity. - Laws shall have prospective effect unless the contrary is
expressly provided.
Section 20. Interpretation of Laws and Administrative Issuances. - In the
interpretation of a law or administrative issuance promulgated in all the official
languages, the English text shall control, unless otherwise specifically provided. In
case of ambiguity, omission or mistake, the other texts may be consulted.
Section 21. No Implied Revival of Repealed Law.- When a law which expressly
repeals a prior law itself repealed, the law first repealed shall not be thereby
revived unless expressly so provided.
Section 22. Revival of Law Impliedly Repealed. - When a law which impliedly
repeals a prior law is itself repealed, the prior law shall thereby be revived, unless
the repealing law provides otherwise.
Section 23. Ignorance of the Law. - Ignorance of the law excuses no one from
compliance therewith.
CHAPTER 6
OFFICIAL GAZETTE

Section 24. Contents. - There shall be published in the Official Gazette all legislative
acts and resolutions of a public nature; all executive and administrative issuances
of general application; decisions or abstracts of decisions of the Supreme Court and
the Court of Appeals, or other courts of similar rank, as may be deemed by said
courts of sufficient importance to be so published; such documents or classes of
documents as may be required so to be published by law; and such documents or
classes of documents as the President shall determine from time to time to have
general application or which he may authorize so to be published.
The publication of any law, resolution or other official documents in the Official
Gazette shall be prima facie evidence of its authority.
Section 25. Editing and Publications. - The Official Gazette shall be edited in the
Office of the President and published weekly in Pilipino or in the English language.
It shall be sold and distributed by the National Printing Office
Tawang Multi-purpose Cooperative v La Trinidad Water District
In case of conflict between the Constitution and a statute, the Constitution always
prevails because the Constitution is the basic law to which all other laws must
conform to. Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract
violates any norm of the constitution that law or contract whether promulgated
by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for
private purposes is null and void and without any force and effect. Thus, since the
Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is
deemed written in every statute and contract."
SCRA is secondary authority.
SC relies on lawyers.
Hierarchy of Laws (All of them are primary authorities)
1. Constitution (1987) – people as author(s)
2. Statutes and Laws 2. International Agreement and Treaties
a. RA – enactment by Congress
b. EO – under the Freedom Constitution (i.e. Family Code); must not be confused
with recent administrative issuances
c. BP – Batas Pambansa (i.e. BP22)
d. PD - Marcos
e. CA – Commonwealth (Naturalization, Torrens System)
3. Jurisprudence/Case law – appellate court decisions are included but are not
published
4. Administrative Rules and Regulations – issued by Administrative agencies
5. Ordinances – local; territorial; statutes of limited application
Max Shoop
Civil Law – Spanish Law
Common Law – American/Anglo-American
Doctrines are applicable in the Philippines.
Philippine hybrid legal system – largely Civil law country because all laws are
codified, but also adopt Common Law system especially as far as jurisprudence is
concerned
Stare decisis /precedent – common law doctrine
Doctrines in jurisprudence are not cast in stone. They can be overturned. Only the
SC can overturn doctrines.
Judicial legislation – Court make new set of rules
Legislative power of Congress – plenary which means it covers everything
What were being dispensed with are the separate days and not the three readings.
Tañada v Tuvera: Does not dispense with the publication but only varies with the
length of days.
CIVIL CODE
ARTICLE 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution
shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines.
1987 CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE VIII, SECTI0N 4
(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with
the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in
the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no
case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When
the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc;
Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a
decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed
except by the court sitting en banc.
 *With respect to the same subject matter and the same issues concerning the
SECTION 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for same parties, minute resolution constitutes res judicata. However, if other parties
decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case is or another subject matter (even with the same parties and issues) is involved, the
assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the Court. A certification to minute resolution is not binding precedent.
this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to
the record of the case and served upon the partied. Any Members who took no Obiter Dictum – an observation (made by a judge) with regard to a matter that is
part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution, must state the secondary to the issue before the court and unnecessary in determining the issue
reason thereof. All lower collegiate courts shall observe the same requirements. that is before the court.
- “By the way” statement; does not squarely address the issue;
Stare decisis derives its name from the Latin maxim stare decisis et non quieta if removed, decision will not be affected
movere, i.e., to adhere to precedent and not to unsettle things that are settled. - To determine whether obiter dictum, you have to spot the
main issue of the case
It simply means that a principle underlying the decision in one case is deemed of - Not used as stare decisis; binding only in so far as the main
imperative authority, controlling the decisions of like cases in the same court and in issue of the case
lower courts within the same jurisdiction, unless and until the decision in question
is reversed or overruled by a court of competent authority. The decisions relied Ratio Decidendi – reasons for a decision (Latin)
upon as precedents are commonly those of appellate courts.
Question of law exists when the doubt centers on what the law is on a certain set
Minute Resolution Decision of facts. There is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of being resolved
Signed only by the clerk of court by Facts and the law on which the without need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence. The issue to be
authority of the justices judgment is based must be expressed resolved must be limited to determining what the law is on a certain set of facts.
clearly (Section 14, Art. 8, 1987 Question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the
Constitution) law is on a certain state of facts.
It does not require the certification of Proviso of Section 4(3) of Article VIII Two levels:
the Chief Justice. speaks of a decision 1. Whether the applicable law is applied?
Not published in the Philippine Reports Court lays down doctrines or principles 2. Whether application of law is correct?
of law, which constitute binding
precedent in a decision duly signed by Question of fact exists when the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged
the members of the Court and certified facts. There is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth
by the Chief Justice. or the falsehood of alleged facts.
Decision on the merits of the case; Not The factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of
a binding precedent because not signed Appeals, are binding on the Court.
by the Court Chief Justice; Basically The exceptions to this rule are:
adopting decision of CA; usually one (1) There is grave abuse of discretion;
page decision of the Court (2) The findings are grounded on speculations;
Will constitute res judicata if same (3) The inference made is manifestly mistaken;
issues and same parties (4) The judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(5) The factual findings are conflicting;
(6) The Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are
contrary to the admissions of the parties;
(7) The Court of Appeals overlooked undisputed facts, which, if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion;
(8) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court;
(9) The facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent; and
(10) The findings of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence
and are contradicted by the evidence on record.
De Castro v JBC
Stare decisis derives its name from the Latin maxim stare decisis et non quieta
movere, i.e., to adhere to precedent and not to unsettle things that are settled. It
simply means that a principle underlying the decision in one case is deemed of
imperative authority, controlling the decisions of like cases in the same court and in
lower courts within the same jurisdiction, unless and until the decision in question
is reversed or overruled by a court of competent authority. The decisions relied
upon as precedents are commonly those of appellate courts. Judicial decisions
assume the same authority as a statute itself and, until authoritatively abandoned,
necessarily become, to the extent that they are applicable, the criteria that must
control the actuations, not only of those called upon to abide by them, but also of
those duty-bound to enforce obedience to them. The Court, as the highest court of
the land, may be guided but is not controlled by precedent. Thus, the Court,
especially with a new membership, is not obliged to follow blindly a particular
decision that it determines, after re-examination, to call for a rectification. The
adherence to precedents is strict and rigid in a common-law setting like the United
Kingdom, where judges make law as binding as an Act of Parliament. But ours is not
a common-law system; hence, judicial precedents are not always strictly and rigidly
followed. A judicial pronouncement in an earlier decision may be followed as a
precedent in a subsequent case only when its reasoning and justification are
relevant, and the court in the latter case accepts such reasoning and justification to
be applicable to the case. The application of the precedent is for the sake of
convenience and stability.
Philhealth v CIR
Pertinent facts: Petitioner cites the August 29, 2001 minute resolution of this Court
dismissing the appeal in Philippine National Bank (G.R. No. 148680). Petitioner
argues that the dismissal of G.R. No. 148680 by minute resolution was a judgment
on the merits; hence, the Court should apply the CA ruling there that a health care
agreement is not an insurance contract.
Issue: W/N the court is bound by a minute resolution in another case? Specifically,
whether this Court is bound by the ruling of the CA in CIR v. Philippine National
Bank that a health care agreement of Philamcare Health Systems is not an
insurance contract for purposes of the DST?
Held:
Although contained in a minute resolution, our dismissal of the petition was a
disposition of the merits of the case. When we dismissed the petition, we
effectively affirmed the CA ruling being questioned. As a result, our ruling in that
case has already become final. When a minute resolution denies or dismisses a
petition for failure to comply with formal and substantive requirements, the
challenged decision, together with its findings of fact and legal conclusions, are
deemed sustained.
But what is its effect on other cases?
With respect to the same subject matter and the same issues concerning the same
parties, it constitutes res judicata. However, if other parties or another subject
matter (even with the same parties and issues) is involved, the minute resolution is
not binding precedent. The Court ruled that the previous case had no bearing on
the latter case because the two cases involved different subject matters, as they
were concerned with the taxable income of different taxable years.
Besides, there are substantial, not simply formal, distinctions between a minute
resolution and a decision. The constitutional requirement under the first
paragraph of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution that the facts and the law
on which the judgment is based must be expressed clearly and distinctly applies
only to decisions, not to minute resolutions. Only the clerk of court signs a minute
resolution by authority of the justices, unlike a decision. It does not require the
certification of the Chief Justice. Moreover, unlike decisions, minute resolutions
are not published in the Philippine Reports. Finally, the proviso of Section 4(3) of
Article VIII speaks of a decision. Indeed, as a rule, this Court lays down doctrines
or principles of law, which constitute binding precedent in a decision duly signed
by the members of the Court and certified by the Chief Justice.
Pagsibigan v People
A question of law exists when the doubt centers on what the law is on a certain set
of facts. A question of fact exists when the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of
the alleged facts.
There is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of being resolved without
need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence. The issue to be resolved
must be limited to determining what the law is on a certain set of facts.
Ramos v Pepsi Cola
For a question to be one of law it must involve no examination of the probative
value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. And the distinction
is well-known: There is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or
difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question
of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of
alleged facts.
Decision en banc – decision by the whole Supreme Court
Decision by division – 5 divisions; typically composed of 3 or 5 members, CJ chairs
the 1st division; Chairs of each divisions are senior justices
- A collegial body; its decision is decision of the SC
Dissenting opinion – does not become precedent; can be used to overturn
doctrines
Principle of Res Judicata – gives finality to cases; related to stare decisis but to a
limited extent; similar parties are required in res judicata
Agustin v Edu
Facts: Leovillo Agustin is an owner of a Volkswagen Beetle Car and he is assailing
the validity of the Letter of Instruction No. 229, activated by AO 1 of LTO that was
issued by Pre. Marcos. The LOI 229 mandates that all vehicles should require early
warning devices so that if ever their vehicles are stalled or unable to move, they
could place it somewhere conspicuous to warn other motorists. The said LOI was
brought by Philippines’ membership to Vienna Convention on Road Signs and
Signals.
Held: The LOI is also in compliance to the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and
Signals of 1968 as international law becomes part of the law of the land. The
conclusion reached by this Court that this petition must be dismissed is reinforced
by this consideration. The petition itself quoted these two whereas clauses of the
assailed Letter of Instruction: "[Whereas], the hazards posed by such obstructions
to traffic have been recognized by international bodies concerned with traffic
safety, the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the United
Nations Organization (U.N.); [Whereas], the said Vienna Convention, which was
ratified by the Philippine Government under P.D. No. 207, recommended the
enactment of local legislation for the installation of road safety signs and devices; *
* * " It cannot be disputed then that this Declaration of Principle found in the
Constitution possesses relevance: "The Philippines * * * adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land * * *."
Bayan Muna v Sec Romulo
The doctrine of incorporation, as expressed in Section 2, Article II of the
Constitution, wherein the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law and international jurisprudence as part of the law of the land and
adheres to the policy of peace, cooperation, and amity with all nations. An
exchange of notes falls “into the category of inter-governmental agreements,”
which is an internationally accepted form of international agreement. The United
Nations Treaty Collections (Treaty Reference Guide) defines the term as follows:
Exchange of notes and executive agreements are terms that could be used
interchangeably. These are both executive agreements that become binding
through executive action. Nations usually prefer this approach since it is more
efficient and it is speedy compared to treaties that require legislative action.
The Constitution vests in the President the power to enter into international
agreements, subject, in appropriate cases, to the required concurrence votes of the
Senate. But as earlier indicated, executive agreements may be validly entered into
without such concurrence.
White Light Corporation v City of Manila
Substantive requirements of a valid ordinance:
 Must not contravene the Constitution or
any statute
 Must not be unfair or oppressive
 Must not be partial or discriminatory
 Must not prohibit but regulate trade
 Must be general and consistent with public
policy
 Must not be unreasonable
CHAPTER 6 POWERS AND DUTIES OF HEADS OF BUREAUS OR OFFICES
Section 36. Authority to Prescribe Forms and Issue Regulations. -
(1) The head of a bureau or office shall prescribe forms and issue circulars or
orders to secure the harmonious and efficient administration of his bureau or
office and to carry into full effect the laws relating to matters within his jurisdiction.
Penalties shall not be prescribed in any circular or order for its violation, except
as expressly allowed by law;
(2) Heads of bureaus or offices are authorized to issue orders regarding the
administration of their internal affairs for the guidance of or compliance by their
officers and employees;
(3) Regional directors are authorized to issue circulars of purely information or
implementing nature and orders relating to the administration of the internal
affairs of regional offices and units within their supervision; and
CHAPTER 11 ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUANCES
Section 50. General Classification of Issuances. -The administrative issuances of
Secretaries and heads of bureaus, offices or agencies shall be in the form of
circulars or orders.
(1) Circulars shall refer to issuances prescribing policies, rules and regulations, and
procedures promulgated pursuant to law, applicable to individuals and
organizations outside the Government and designed to supplement provisions of
the law or to provide means for carrying them out, including information relating
thereto; and
(2) Orders shall refer to issuances directed to particular offices, officials, or
employees, concerning specific matters including assignments, detail and transfer
of personnel, for observance or compliance by all concerned.
Section 51. Numbering System of Issuances. - Every circular or order issued
pursuant to the preceding section shall properly be identified as such and
chronologically numbered. Each class of issuance shall begin with number 1 of each
calendar year.
Section 52. Official Logbook. - Each department, bureau, office or agency shall
keep and preserve a logbook in which shall be recorded in chronological order, all
final official acts, decisions, transactions or contracts, pertaining to the department,
bureau, office or agency. Whenever the performance of an official act is in issue,
the date and the time record in the logbook shall be controlling. The logbook shall
be in the custody of the chief Administrative Officer concerned and shall be open to
the public for inspection.
Section 53. Government-wide Application of the Classification of Issuances.
(1) The Records Management and Archives Office in the General Services
Administration shall provide such assistance as may be necessary to effect general
adherence to the foregoing classification of issuances, including the conduct of
studies for developing sub-classifications and guidelines to meet peculiar needs;
and
(2) All administrative issuances of a general or permanent character shall be
compiled, indexed and published pursuant to the provisions of this Code.
Civil Code Article 7 Laws are only repealed by subsequent ones, and their violation
or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the
contrary.
Commissioner of Customs v Hypermix Feeds Corporation
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. When, on the other hand, the
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.
VICTORIA MILLING vs. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION
When an administrative agency promulgates rules and regulations, it "makes" a
new law with the force and effect of a valid law, while when it renders an opinion
or gives a statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law. Rules and
regulations when promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or authority
conferred upon the administrative agency by law, partake of the nature of a
statute, and compliance therewith may be enforced by a penal sanction provided in
the law. Rules and regulations are the product of a delegated power to create new
or additional legal provisions that have the effect of law. A rule is binding on the
courts so long as the procedure fixed for its promulgation is followed and its scope
is within the statutory authority granted by the legislature. Administrative
interpretation of the law is at best merely advisory, for it is the courts that finally
determine what the law means.
NFSW vs. ETHELWOOD OVEJERA
PRESIDENTIAL ISSUANCES
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE BK. III,
CHAPTER 1 POWER OF CONTROL
Section 1. Power of Control. - The President shall have control of all the executive
departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully
executed.
CHAPTER 2 ORDINANCE POWER
Section 2. Executive Orders. - Acts of the President providing for rules of a general
or permanent character in implementation or execution of constitutional or
statutory powers shall be promulgated in executive orders.
Section 3. Administrative Orders. - Acts of the President, which relate to particular
aspect of governmental operations in pursuance of his duties as administrative
head shall be promulgated in administrative orders.
Section 4. Proclamations. - Acts of the President fixing a date or declaring a status
or condition of public moment or interest, upon the existence of which the
operation of a specific law or regulation is made to depend, shall be promulgated in
proclamations which shall have the force of an executive order.
Section 5. Memorandum Orders. - Acts of the President on matters of
administrative detail or of subordinate or temporary interest which only concern a
particular officer or office of the Government shall be embodied in memorandum
orders.
Section 6. Memorandum Circulars. - Acts of the President on matters relating to
internal administration, which the President desires to bring to the attention of all
or some of the departments, agencies, bureaus or offices of the Government, for
information or compliance, shall be embodied in memorandum circulars.
Section 7. General or Special Orders. - Acts and commands of the President in his
capacity as Commander-in- Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be
issued as general or special orders.
LACK OF APPLICABLE LAW
Civil Code, Article 9
No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence,
obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.
SILVERIO vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
No Law Allows The Change of Entry In The Birth Certificate As To Sex On the
Ground of Sex Reassignment
The determination of a person’s sex appearing in his birth certificate is a
legal issue and the court must look to the statutes. Under RA 9048, a correction in
the civil registry involving the change of sex is not a mere clerical or typographical
error. It is a substantial change for which the applicable procedure is Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court. The birth certificate of petitioner contained no error. All entries
therein, including those corresponding to his first name and sex, were all correct.
No correction is necessary. Sex reassignment is not among those acts or events
mentioned in Article 407. Neither is it recognized nor even mentioned by any law,
expressly or impliedly. A person’s sex is an essential factor in marriage and family
relations. It is a part of a person’s legal capacity and civil status.
ART. 413. All other matters pertaining to the registration of civil status
shall be governed by special laws.
But there is no such special law in the Philippines governing sex reassignment and
its effects. The changes sought by petitioner will have serious and wide-ranging
legal and public policy consequences.
REYES vs. LIM
The instant case, however, is precisely one where there is a hiatus in the law and in
the Rules of Court. If left alone, the hiatus will result in unjust enrichment to Reyes
at the expense of Lim. This is not a case of equity overruling a positive provision of
law or judicial rule for there is none that governs this particular case. This is a case
of silence or insufficiency of the law and the Rules of Court. In this case, Article 9 of
the Civil Code expressly mandates the courts to make a ruling despite the silence,
obscurity or insufficiency of the laws. This calls for the application of equity, which
fills the open spaces in the law.
1. Signed by the Executive through the Sec. of DFA
2. It does not become binding to the parties unless it has been ratified by at
least 2/3 of the Senate.
3. First obligation of State is legislation
When does a treaty need to be ratified by the Senate?
Exchange of notes – executive agreement that does not need ratification; sub-class
of executive agreement; has the same binding effect of treaty; adjustments in
terms of implementation; temporary in nature
Treaty – political issues or changes of national policies; in the hierarchy of laws, it’s
equal to a statute or law
Article 2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a treaty as an
international agreement concluded between states in written form and governed
by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more
related instruments and whatever its particular designation. International
agreements may be in the form of:
(1) Treaties that require legislative concurrence after executive ratification;
(2) Executive agreements, those are similar to treaties, except that they do not
require legislative concurrence and are usually less formal and deal with a narrower
range of subject matters than treaties.
Under international law, there is no difference between treaties and executive
agreements in terms of their binding effects on the contracting states concerned,
as long as the negotiating functionaries have remained within their powers.
A treaty has greater dignity than an executive agreement, because its constitutional
efficacy is beyond doubt, a treaty having behind it the authority of the President,
the Senate, and the people; a ratified treaty, unlike an executive agreement, takes
precedence over any prior statutory enactment.
Ordinances – laws of limited application; applicable only within its jurisdiction
If admin issuance is merely for interpreting the law, it does not need to be
published but if it impairs substantial interests, it needs notification, hearing and
publication.
Constitutional Supremacy
Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS
A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and
administration of a nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable
except by the authority from which it emanates. It has been defined as the
fundamental and paramount law of the nation. Under the doctrine of
constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution
that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive
branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and
without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental,
paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute
and contract. A provision which lays down a general principle, such as those found
in Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, is usually not self-executing. But a provision
which is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of
supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by
means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing.
Thus a constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the right
conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, so that they
can be determined by an examination and construction of its terms, and there is no
language indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for action. Unless
it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional
mandate, the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are
self-executing. If the constitutional provisions are treated as requiring legislation
instead of self-executing, the legislature would have the power to ignore and
practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental law. Adhering to the doctrine of
constitutional supremacy, the subject constitutional provision is, as it should be,
impliedly written in the bidding rules issued by respondent GSIS, lest the bidding
rules be nullified for being violative of the Constitution. It is a basic principle in
constitutional law that all laws and contracts must conform with the fundamental
law of the land. Those which violate the Constitution lose their reason for being.
Sameer v Cabiles
In the hierarchy of laws, the Constitution is supreme. No branch or office of the
government may exercise its powers in any manner inconsistent with the
Constitution, regardless of the existence of any law that supports such exercise.
The Constitution cannot be trumped by any other law. All laws must be read in light
of the Constitution. Any law that is inconsistent with it is a nullity. Thus, when a law
or a provision of law is null because it is inconsistent with the Constitution,the
nullity cannot be cured by reincorporation or reenactment of the same or a similar
law or provision. A law or provision of law that was already declared
unconstitutional remains as such unless circumstances have sochanged as to
warrant a reverse conclusion.
Serrano v Gallant
The provisions of the 1987 Constitution are presumed self-executing, there are
some which this Court has declared not judicially enforceable, Article XIII being
one, particularly Section 3. The guarantees of "full protection to labor" and
"security of tenure", when examined in isolation, are facially unqualified, and the
broadest interpretation possible suggests a blanket shield in favor of labor against
any form of removal regardless of circumstance. This interpretation implies an
unimpeachable right to continued employment-a utopian notion, doubtless-but
still hardly within the contemplation of the framers. Subsequent legislation is still
needed to define the parameters of these guaranteed rights to ensure the
protection and promotion, not only the rights of the labor sector, but of the
employers' as well. Without specific and pertinent legislation, judicial bodies will be
at a loss, formulating their own conclusion to approximate at least the aims of the
Constitution. Ultimately, therefore, Section 3 of Article XIII cannot, on its own, be
a source of a positive enforceable right to stave off the dismissal of an employee
for just cause owing to the failure to serve proper notice or hearing. As manifested
by several framers of the 1987 Constitution, the provisions on social justice require
legislative enactments for their enforceability.
Thus, Section 3, Article XIII cannot be treated as a principal source of direct
enforceable rights, for the violation of which the questioned clause may be
declared unconstitutional.