G.R. No. L-64279 - APRIL 1984 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-64279April 30, 1984Anselmo L. Pesigan vs. Domingo Medina Angeles, et al. G.R. No. L-63191April 30, 1984PhilippineLong Distance Telephone Co. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-60098April 30, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Mula Cruz G.R. No. L-59298April 30, 1984Florentina L. Baclayon vs. Pacito G. Mutia, et al. G.R. No. L-59217April 30, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Ilarde Itura G.R. No. L-57288April 30, 1984Leonila Sarmineto vs. Enrique A. Agana, et al. G.R. No. L-56968April 30, 1984Rodolfo De Leon vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-48433April 30, 1984Pacita Dimayuga, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-48153April 30, 1984Escolastico Bustarga, et al. vs. Feliciano Navo II, et al. G.R. No. L-42962April 30, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Egot G.R. No. L-32995April 30, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Del Castillo, Sr., et al. G.R. No. L-31956April 30, 1984Filomena Gerona De Castro vs. Joaquin Teng Queen Tan, et al. A.M. No. P-2781April 27, 1984Court Administrator vs. Danilo G. Reyes G.R. No. L-64693April 27, 1984Lita Enterprises, Inc. vs. Second Civil Cases Div., Iac, et al. G.R. No. L-62636April 27, 1984Acting Commissioner of Customs vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-56877April 27, 1984The People of the Philippines vs. Buenaventura Baylon G.R. No. L-55900April 27, 1984Lumen Policarpio vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-55509April 27, 1984Ethel Grimm Roberts vs. Tomas R. Leonidas, et al. G.R. No. L-54081April 27, 1984Adelaido Herrera vs. Iñaki Larrazabal, et al. G.R. Nos. L-44859-60April 27, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Abelardo Balbuena, et al. G.R. No. L-39087April 27, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio Q. De Jesus G.R. No. L-63860April 24, 1984Nemia Sagliba vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-46439April 24, 1984Andrea M. Moscoso vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-37578April 24, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Augusto Mutuc, et al. G.R. Nos. L-48736-37April 19, 1984EM Transport, Inc. vs. the Honorable Jacobo C. Clave, et al. G.R. No. L-47067April 17, 1984The People of the Philippines vs. Oliver S. Tajon G.R. No. L-39804April 17, 1984LCC Corporation vs. Jesus Farrales G.R. No. L-36383April 17, 1984The People of the Philippines vs. Johnny Basadre G.R. No. L-35157April 17, 1984Francisco A. Perfecto vs. Feliciano S. Gonzales, et al. G.R. No. L-29986April 17, 1984Ernesto Oppen, Inc. vs. the Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-60370April 17, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Arnel Damo AC-G.R. No. 25034-CRApril 11, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Mario Navoa, et al. G.R. No. L-37014April 6, 1984The People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Gayola, et al. G.R. No. L-34541April 5, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Hilarion U. Jarencio, et al. G.R. No. L-29016-18April 5, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Artemio Bernal G.R. No. L-63284April 4, 1984Saulog Transit, Inc. vs. Hon. Manuel M. Lazaro, et al. G.R. No. L-60033April 4, 1984Teofisto Guingona, Jr. et al. vs. City Fiscal of Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-62985April 2, 1984Arturo Curso, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-62117April 2, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Jesus Arlegui, et al. G.R. Nos. L-62014-16April 2, 1984Inocencio Santiago, et al. vs. Jose P. Castro et al. G.R. No. L-35309April 2, 1984The People of the Philippines vs. Benito Marbebe, et al. G.R. No. L-34586April 2, 1984Hospicio Nilo vs. Honorable Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-33697April 2, 1984The People of the Philippines vs. Constancio L. Cauyan G.R. No. L-32274April 2, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Villanueva, et al. A.C. No. 1392April 2, 1984Preciosa R. Obusan vs. Generoso B. Obusan, Jr. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Anselmo L. Pesigan vs. Domingo Medina Angeles, et al.PhilippineLong Distance Telephone Co. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Mula CruzFlorentina L. Baclayon vs. Pacito G. Mutia, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Ilarde IturaLeonila Sarmineto vs. Enrique A. Agana, et al.Rodolfo De Leon vs. Commission on Elections, et al.Pacita Dimayuga, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Escolastico Bustarga, et al. vs. Feliciano Navo II, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Pedro EgotPeople of the Philippines vs. Pedro Del Castillo, Sr., et al.Filomena Gerona De Castro vs. Joaquin Teng Queen Tan, et al.Court Administrator vs. Danilo G. ReyesLita Enterprises, Inc. vs. Second Civil Cases Div., Iac, et al.Acting Commissioner of Customs vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al.The People of the Philippines vs. Buenaventura BaylonLumen Policarpio vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Ethel Grimm Roberts vs. Tomas R. Leonidas, et al.Adelaido Herrera vs. Iñaki Larrazabal, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Abelardo Balbuena, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio Q. De JesusNemia Sagliba vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, et al.Andrea M. Moscoso vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Augusto Mutuc, et al.EM Transport, Inc. vs. the Honorable Jacobo C. Clave, et al.The People of the Philippines vs. Oliver S. TajonLCC Corporation vs. Jesus FarralesThe People of the Philippines vs. Johnny BasadreFrancisco A. Perfecto vs. Feliciano S. Gonzales, et al.Ernesto Oppen, Inc. vs. the Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Arnel DamoPeople of the Philippines vs. Mario Navoa, et al.The People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Gayola, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Hilarion U. Jarencio, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Artemio BernalSaulog Transit, Inc. vs. Hon. Manuel M. Lazaro, et al.Teofisto Guingona, Jr. et al. vs. City Fiscal of Manila, et al.Arturo Curso, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Jesus Arlegui, et al.Inocencio Santiago, et al. vs. Jose P. Castro et al.The People of the Philippines vs. Benito Marbebe, et al.Hospicio Nilo vs. Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.The People of the Philippines vs. Constancio L. CauyanPeople of the Philippines vs. Romeo Villanueva, et al.Preciosa R. Obusan vs. Generoso B. Obusan, Jr.The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-64279 April 30, 1984

ANSELMO L. PESIGAN and MARCELINO L. PESIGAN,petitioners,
vs.
JUDGE DOMINGO MEDINA ANGELES, Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City Branch 129, acting for REGIONAL TRIAL COURT of Camarines Norte, now presided over by JUDGE NICANOR ORIÑO, Daet Branch 40; DRA. BELLA S. MIRANDA, ARNULFO V. ZENAROSA, ET AL.,respondents.

Quiazon, De Guzman Makalintal and Barot for petitioners.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

AQUINO,J.:

At issue in this case is the enforceability, before publication in the Official Gazette ofJune 14, 1982,of Presidential Executive Order No. 626-A datedOctober 25, 1980,providing for theconfiscation and forfeitureby the government of carabaos transported from one province to another.

Anselmo L. Pesigan and Marcelo L. Pesigan, carabao dealers, transported in an Isuzu ten-wheeler truck in the evening of April 2, 1982 twenty-six carabaos and a calf from Sipocot, Camarines Sur with Padre Garcia, Batangas, as the destination.

They were provided with (1) a health certificate from the provincial veterinarian of Camarines Sur, issued under the Revised Administrative Code and Presidential Decree No. 533, the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974; (2) a permit to transport large cattle issued under the authority of the provincial commander; and (3) three certificates of inspection, one from the Constabulary command attesting that the carabaos were not included in the list of lost, stolen and questionable animals; one from the LIvestock inspector, Bureau of Animal Industry of Libmanan, Camarines Sur and one from the mayor of Sipocot.

In spite of the permit to transport and the said four certificates, the carabaos, while passing at Basud, Camarines Norte, were confiscated by Lieutenant Arnulfo V. Zenarosa, the town's police station commander, and by Doctor Bella S. Miranda, provincial veterinarian. The confiscation was basis on the aforementioned Executive Order No. 626-A which provides "that henceforth, no carabao, regardless of age, sex, physical condition or purpose and no carabeefshall be transported from one province to another.The carabaos or carabeef transported in violation of this Executive Order as amended shall be subject toconfiscation and forfeitureby the government to be distributed ... to deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit, in the case of carabaos" (78 OG 3144).

Doctor Miranda distributed the carabaos among twenty-five farmers of Basud, and to a farmer from the Vinzons municipal nursery (Annex 1).

The Pesigans filed against Zenarosa and Doctor Miranda an action for replevin for the recovery of the carabaos allegedly valued at P70,000 and damages of P92,000. The replevin order could not be executed by the sheriff. In his order of April 25, 1983 Judge Domingo Medina Angeles, who heard the case at Daet and who was later transferred to Caloocan City, dismissed the case for lack of cause of action.

The Pesigans appealed to this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and section 25 of the Interim Rules and pursuant to Republic Act No. 5440, a 1968 law which superseded Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.

We hold that the said executive order should not be enforced against the Pesigans onApril 2, 1982because, as already noted, itis a penal regulationpublished more than two months later in the Official Gazette datedJune 14, 1982.It became effective only fifteen days thereafter as provided in article 2 of the Civil Code and section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code.

The word "laws" in article 2 (article 1 of the old Civil Code) includes circulars and regulations which prescribe penalties. 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 vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640; Lim Hoa Ting vs. Central Bank of the Phils., 104 Phil. 573; Balbuna vs. Secretary of Education, 110 Phil. 150.)

The Spanish Supreme Court ruled that "bajo la denominacion generica de leyes, se comprenden tambien los reglamentos, Reales decretos, Instrucciones, Circulares y Reales ordenes dictadas de conformidad con las mismas por el Gobierno en uso de su potestad (1 Manresa, Codigo Civil, 7th Ed., p. 146.)

Thus, in theQue Po Laycase, a person, convicted by the trial court of having violated Central Bank Circular No. 20 and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and to pay a fine of P1,000, wasacquittedby this Court because the circular was published in the Official Gazettethree months after his conviction.He was not bound by the circular.

That ruling applies to a violation of Executive Order No. 626-A because itsconfiscation and forfeiture provision or sanction makes it a penal statute.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.

The cases ofPolice Commission vs. Bello,L-29960, January 30, 1971, 37 SCRA 230 andPhilippine Blooming Mills vs. Social Security System,124 Phil. 499, cited by the respondents, do not involve the enforcement of any penal regulation.

Commonwealth Act No. 638 requires that all Presidential executive orders having general applicability should be published in the Official Gazette. It provides that "every order or document which shag prescribe a penalty shall be deemed to have general applicability and legal effect."

Indeed, the practice has always been to publish executive orders in the Gazette. Section 551 of the Revised Administrative Code provides that even bureau "regulations and orders shall become effective only when approved by the Department Head and published in the Official Gazette or otherwise publicly promulgated". (See Commissioner of Civil Service vs. Cruz, 122 Phil. 1015.)

In the instant case, the livestock inspector and the provincial veterinarian of Camarines Norte and the head of the Public Affairs Office of the Ministry of Agriculture were unaware of Executive Order No. 626-A.ℒαwρhi৷The Pesigans could not have been expected to be cognizant of such an executive order.

It results that they have a cause of action for the recovery of the carabaos. The summary confiscation was not in order. The recipients of the carabaos should return them to the Pesigans. However, they cannot transport the carabaos to Batangas because they are now bound by the said executive order. Neither can they recover damages. Doctor Miranda and Zenarosa acted in good faith in ordering the forfeiture and dispersal of the carabaos.

WHEREFORE,the trial court's order of dismissal and the confiscation and dispersal of the carabaos are reversed and set aside. Respondents Miranda and Zenarosa are ordered to restore the carabaos, with the requisite documents, to the petitioners, who as owners are entitled to possess the same, with the right to dispose of them in Basud or Sipocot, Camarines Sur. No costs.

SO ORDERED.1äwphï1.ñët

Makasiar, (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

De Castro, J., took no part.

Separate Opinions

ABAD SANTOS,J.,concurring:

The Pesigans are entitled to the return of their carabaos or the value of each carabao which is not returned for any reason. The Pesigans are also entitled to a reasonable rental for each carabao from the twenty six farmers who used them. The farmers should not enrich themselves at the expense of the Pesigans.