G.R. No.

L-63915 April 24, 1985 The publication of all presidential issuances “of a
Tañada v. Tuvera
FACTS
Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel
respondent public officials to publish, and/or cause
the publication in the Official Gazette of various
presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general
orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of
implementation and administrative orders, invoking
the right to be informed on matters of public concern
as recognized by the 1973 Constitution.
Respondents further contend that publication in the
Official Gazette is not a sine qua non requirement for
the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves
provide for their own effectivity dates.
public nature” or “of general applicability” is
mandated by law. Obviously, presidential decrees
that provide for fines, forfeitures or penalties for their
violation or otherwise impose a burden or. 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such as administrative and executive orders need not
be published on the assumption that they have been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.
Publication is, therefore, mandatory.

ISSUE: WON the publication of presidential decrees,

letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations,
executive orders, letter of implementation and
administrative orders is necessary before its
enforcement.

RULING

Yes. Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that laws shall

take effect after fifteen days following the completion
of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is
otherwise provided. The Court has ruled that
publication in the Official Gazette is necessary in
those cases where the legislation itself does not
provide for its effectivity date-for then the date of
publication is material for determining its date of
effectivity, which is the fifteenth day following its
publication-but not when the law itself provides for
the date when it goes into effect.

The clear object of the above-quoted 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 "ignorantia legis non excusat." It would be the
height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a
citizen for the transgression of a law of which he had
no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.

Article 2 does not preclude the requirement of

publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law
itself provides for the date of its effectivity.
G.R. No. 80718 January 29, 1988
FELIZA P. DE ROY and VIRGILIO RAMOS, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and LUIS BERNAL, SR., GLENIA
BERNAL, LUIS BERNAL, JR., HEIRS OF MARISSA
BERNAL, namely, GLICERIA DELA CRUZ BERNAL and
LUIS BERNAL, SR., respondents.
case at bar owing to the non-publication of the
Habaluyas decision in the Official Gazette as of the
time the subject decision of the Court of Appeals was
promulgated.
ISSUE: WON Supreme Court decisions must be
published in the Official Gazette before they can be
binding.

FACTS
The firewall of a burned-out building owned by
petitioners collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop
occupied by the family of private respondents,
resulting in injuries to private respondents and the
death of Marissa Bernal, a daughter. Private
respondents had been warned by petitioners to
vacate their shop in view of its proximity to the
weakened wall but the former failed to do so. On the
basis of the foregoing facts, the Regional Trial Court,
rendered judgment finding petitioners guilty of gross
negligence and awarding damages to private
respondents. On appeal, the decision of the trial court
was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals.
RULING
No. there is no law requiring the publication of
Supreme Court decisions in the Official Gazette
before they can be binding and as a condition to their
becoming effective. It is the bounden duty of counsel
as lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of
decisions of the Supreme Court particularly where
issues have been clarified, consistently reiterated,
and published in the advance reports of Supreme
Court decisions (G. R. s) and in such publications as
the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) and
law journals.

On September 9, 1987, the last day of the fifteen-day

period to file an appeal, petitioners filed a motion for
extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration,
which was eventually denied by the appellate court in
the Resolution of September 30, 1987. Petitioners
filed their motion for reconsideration on September
24, 1987 but this was denied in the Resolution of
October 27, 1987.

Court of Appeals denied petitioners' motion for

extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration,
directed entry of judgment and denied their motion
for reconsideration. It applied the rule laid down in
Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japzon, [G.R. No. 70895,
August 5, 1985,138 SCRA 461, that the fifteen-day
period for appealing or for filing a motion for
reconsideration cannot be extended.

In the instant case, however, petitioners' motion for

extension of time was filed on September 9, 1987,
more than a year after the expiration of the grace
period on June 30, 1986. Hence, it is no longer within
the coverage of the grace period.

Petitioners contend that the rule enunciated in the

Habaluyas case should not be made to apply to the
G.R. No. L-6791 March 29, 1954 officially and specifically informed of said contents
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, and its penalties.
vs.
QUE PO LAY, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Que Po Lay is appealing from the decision of the Court

of First Instance of Manila, finding him guilty of
violating Central Bank Circular No. 20 in connection
with section 34 of Republic Act No. 265, and
sentencing him to suffer six months imprisonment, to
pay a fine of P1,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

The charge was that the appellant who was in

possession of foreign exchange consisting of U.S.
dollars, U.S. checks and U.S. money orders amounting
to about $7,000 failed to sell the same to the Central
Bank through its agents within one day following the
receipt of such foreign exchange as required by
Circular No. 20. the appeal is based on the claim that
said circular No. 20 was not published in the Official
Gazette prior to the act or omission imputed to the
appellant, and that consequently, said circular had no
force and effect. It is contended that Commonwealth
Act. No., 638 and Act 2930 both require said circular
to be published in the Official Gazette, it being an
order or notice of general applicability. The Solicitor
General answering this contention says that
Commonwealth Act. No. 638 and 2930 do not require
the publication in the Official Gazette of said circular
issued for the implementation of a law in order to
have force and effect.

ISSUE: WON publication of Circular 20 in the Official

Gazette is needed for it to become effective and
subject violators to corresponding penalties.

RULING

Yes. It is true that Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank

is not a statute or law but being issued for the
implementation of the law authorizing its issuance, it
has the force and effect of law according to settled
jurisprudence. Moreover, as a rule, circulars and
regulations especially like the Circular No. 20 of the
Central Bank in question which prescribes a penalty
for its violation should be published before becoming
effective, this, on the general principle and theory
that before the public is bound by its contents,
especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation or
circular must first be published and the people