CASE: DE JESUS, ET. AL., VS.
COA AND Leonardo CASE: PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE
Jamorjalin
Facts:
-RA 6758 was passed on July 1, 1989 entitled “ An Act
Prescribing A Revised Compensation and Position
Classification System in the Government and for
Other Purposes.”
-Sec. 12 of said law provides for the consolidation of
allowances and additional compensation into
standardized salary rates. However, certain
additional compensations were exempted form
consolidation.
-In order to implement RA 6758, the DBM issued
Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10
discontinuing without qualification effective Nov. 1,
1989, all allowances and fringe benefits granted on
top of basic salary.
-Pursuant to aforesaid Law and Circular, respondent
Jamoralin, disallowed on post audit, the payment of
honoraria to the herein petitioners.
-Aggrieved petitioners appealed to the COA:
questioning the enforceability of CCC No. 10 issued
by the DBM. They contend that CCC No. 10 is
inconsistent with provisions of RA 6758 therefore
void. They also contend that it is without force and
effect because it was not published in the Official
Gazette.
-COA upheld the validity and enforceability of DBM-
CCC No. 10 and reconsideration was dismissed.
ISSUE: Is CCC No. 10 by the DBM is valid and
enforceable?
Ruling:
-The Court ruled that there is a need for publication
of DBM-CCC No. 10 since DBM-CCC No. 10 is the
nature of an administrative circular the purpose of
which is to enforce or implement an existing law.
-It is clear that DBM-CCC No. 10 which completely
disallows payment of allowances and other
additional compensation to gov’t officials and
employees, starting Nov. 1, 19089 is not a mere
interpretative or internal regulation.
EXPORTERS, INC. VS. HON. TORRES AND JOSE
SARMIENTO.
Facts:
-The Philippine Association of Service Exporters
(PASEI) to prohibit and enjoin the Sec. of the DOLE
and the Administrator of the POEA from enforcing
and implementing DOLE Dept. Order No. 16, Series of
1991 and POEA Memorandum Circulars No. 30 and
37, Series of 1991, temporarily suspending the
recruitment by private employment agencies of
Filipino domesic helpers for Hong Kong and vesting
in the DOLE, thru the facilities of the POEA, the task
of processing and deployinfg such workers.
-As a result of stories regarding abuses of domestic
helpers employed in Hong Kong, DOLE Sec. issued
Department Order No. 16, series of 1991, temporarily
suspending the recruitment by private employment
agencies of Filipino DH going to HK. The DOLE itself.
Through the POEA took over the business of
seploying such HK-Bound workers.
-Pursuant to the DOLE Circular, POEA issued
Memorandum Circular No. 30, series of 1991,
providing for the guidelines on the government
processing the deployment of Filipino and the
accreditation of HK recruitment agencies to hire
Filipino DH.
ISSUE: Are the requirements of publication and
filing with the Office of the National
Administrative Register were not complied with?
Ruling:
Yes, they are not complied with as provided for in
Art. 2 of the CC, Art. 5 of the Labor Code, and Sections
3(1) and 4, Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative
Code of 1987.
Due to lack of power publication and filing with the
National Administrative Register, the DOLE and
POEA Circulars are legally invalid, defective, and
unenforceable.
CASE: PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING
CORP (PITC) VS. COA
Facts:
-PITC was created by virtue of PD 952 for the
purpose of promoting and developing Philippine
Trade in pursuance of National Economic Devt.
-PITC BOD approved a car plan program for qualified
PITC officers. 50% shall be shouldered by PITC while
another 50% by the officer deducted in salary for a
period of 5 years.
-In addition, PITC will reimburse the officer
concerned 50% of the annual car registration,
insurance premiums and costs of registration chattel
mortgage.
-RA 6758 was enacted on July 1, 1989 entitled as an “
An Act Prescribing A Revised Compensation and
Position Classification System in the Government and
for Other Purposes.”
-Sec. 12 of said law provides for the consolidation of
allowances and additional compensation into
standardized salary rates. However, certain
additional compensations were exmpted form
consolidation.
In order to implement RA 6758, the DBM issued
Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10
discontinuing without qualification effective Nov. 1,
1989, all allowances and fringe benefits granted on
top of basic salary.
-On post audit, the payment/reimbursement of the
50% of the yearly car registration and insurance
premiums and 50% of the costs of the registration of
the chattel mortgage over the car made after
November 1, 1989 as disallowed by the resident COA
auditor. Disallowance was made on the ground that
the subject car plan benefits were not one of the
fringe benefits or form compensation allowed to be
continued after said date under par.5.6 of DBM-CC
No. 10 in relation to pars. 5.4 and 5.5 thereof.
-PITC and the affected PITC officials appealed to COA
but denied it.
ISSUE: Now, the petitioner questions the validity
of DBM-CCC No. 10 for its non-publication in the
Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general
publication.
Ruling:
DBM-CCC No. 10 is not a mere interpretative or
internal regulation. It tends to deprive the
government workers of their allowances and
additional compensation sorely needed to keep the
body and soul together.
Would the subsequent publication of DBM-CCC
No. 10 cure the defect and retroact to the time the
items were disallowed in audit?
No, publication is a condition precedent to the
effectivity of a law to inform the public of the
contents of the law or rules and regulations before
their rights and interests are affected by the same.
From the time COA disallowed the expenses in audit
up to the filing of herein petition the subject
remained in legal limbo due to its non-publication.
CASE: TANADA VS TUVERA
Facts:
Invoking the right of the people to be informed on
matters of public concern as well as the principle that
laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in
the Official Gazette, petitioners filed for writ of
mandamus to compel respondent public officials to
publish and/or cause to publish various presidential
decrees, letters of instructions, general orders,
proclamations, executive orders, letters of
implementations and administrative orders.
The Solicitor General, representing the respondents,
moved for the dismissal of the case, contending that
petitioners have no legal personality to bring the
instant petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not publication in the Official Gazette is
required before any law or statute becomes valid and
enforceable.
HELD:
Art. 2 of the Civil Code does not preclude the
requirement of publication in the Official Gazette,
even if the law itself provides for the date of its
effectivity. The clear object of this provision is to give
the general public adequate notice of the various
laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct
as citizens. Without such notice and publication,
there would be no basis for the application of the
maxim ignoratia legis nominem excusat. It would be
the height of injustive to punish or otherwise burden
a citizen for the transgression of a law which he had
no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.
The very first clause of Section 1 of CA 638 reads:
there shall be published in the Official Gazette…. The
word “shall” therein imposes upon respondent
officials an imperative duty. That duty must be
enforced if the constitutional right of the people to be
informed on matter of public concern is to be given
substance and validity.
The publication of presidential issuances of public
nature or of general applicability is a requirement of
due process. It is a rule of law that before a person
may be bound by law, he must first be officially and
specifically informed of its contents. The Court
declared that presidential issuances of general
application which have not been published have no
force and effect.
Ruling:
There is no doubt that issuances by an administrative
agency have the force and effect of law. Corollarily,
when the issuances are of “general applicability,”
publication is necessary as a requirement of due
process. In this regard, Commonwealth Act No. 638,
mandates that besides legislations and resolutions of
public nature of the Congress of the Philippines,
executive and administrative orders and
proclamations which have general applicability must
also be published. It cannot be disputed that the
questioned memorandum increases the imposable
duties for the importation of oil, a departure from the
previous practice. To be sure, the increase invariably
interferes with the property rights of oil importers.
Hence, the statutory norm of publication is necessary,
not only for effectivity, but also to apprise those
affected. Since the assailed memorandum was never
published, it follows the same cannot be upheld.

CASE: CALTEX VS CA

Facts:

-Caltex imported light/medium mix special oil with

which the Collector of Customs assessed the ad
valorem duties.

- The basis of the assessments was a memorandum

dated January 26, 1971, issued by then Acting
Commissioner of Customs which provided that the
duties and taxes in the importation of crude oil shall
be based on the gross actual receipt without
deducting the basic sediment and water (BSW).

-Said memorandum was not published as admitted

by Bureau of Customs.

ISSUE: Whether the publication is necessary for

the enforcement and validity of the
memorandum.