cases pfr

7/23/2019 cases pfr

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cases-pfr 1/37

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-6339 April 20, 1954

MANUEL LARA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,

vs.

PETRONILO EL ROSARIO, !R., defendant-appellee.

Manansala and Manansala for appellants.

Ramon L. Resurreccion for appellee.

MONTEMA"OR, J.#

In 19! defendant Pet"onilo del Rosa"io, #"., o$ne" of t$ent%-five ta&i cabs o" ca"s, ope"ated a ta&i

business unde" the na'e of ()aval *a&i.( +e e'plo%ed a'on othe"s th"ee 'echanics and 9 chauffeu"s

o" d"ive"s, the latte" havin $o"ed fo" pe"iods "anin f"o' / to 0 'onths. 2n 3epte'be" , 19!,

$ithout ivin said 'echanics and chauffeu"s 0! da%s advance notice, 4el Rosa"io sold his / units o"

cabs to 5a Mallo"ca, a t"anspo"tation co'pan%, as a "esult of $hich, acco"din to the 'echanics and

chauffeu"s above-'entioned the% lost thei" 6obs because the 5a Mallo"ca failed to continue the' in thei"

e'plo%'ent. *he% b"ouht this action aainst 4el Rosa"io to "ecove" co'pensation fo" ove"ti'e $o"

"ende"ed be%ond eiht hou"s and on 3unda%s and leal holida%s, and one 'onth sala"% 7'esada8 p"ovided

fo" in a"ticle 0!/ of the Code of Co''e"ce because the failu"e of thei" fo"'e" e'plo%e" to ive the' one

'onth notice. 3ubseuentl%, the th"ee 'echanics unconditionall% $ithd"e$ thei" clai's. 3o onl% the 9d"ive"s "e'ained as plaintiffs. *he defendant filed a 'otion fo" dis'issal of the co'plaint on the "ound

that it stated no cause of action and the t"ial cou"t fo" the ti'e bein denied the 'otion sa%in that it $ill

be conside"ed $hen the case $as hea"d on the 'e"its. Afte" t"ial the co'plaint $as dis'issed. Plaintiffs

appealed f"o' the o"de" of dis'issal to the Cou"t of Appeals $hich *"ibunal afte" findin onl% uestions

of la$ a"e involved, ce"tified the case to us.

*he pa"ties a"e a"eed that the plaintiffs as chauffeu"s "eceived no fi&ed co'pensation based on the hou"s

o" the pe"iod of ti'e that the% $o"ed. Rathe", the% $e"e paid on the co''ission basis, that is to sa%,

each d"ive" "eceived /! pe" cent of the "oss "etu"ns o" ea"nins f"o' the ope"ation of his ta&i cab.

Plaintiffs clai' that as a "ule, each d"ive ope"ated a ta&i 1/ hou"s a da% $ith "oss ea"nins "anin f"o'

P/! to P/, "eceivin the"ef"o' the co""espondin /! pe" cent sha"e "anin f"o' P to P, and that inso'e cases, especiall% du"in 3atu"da%s, 3unda%s, and holida%s $hen a d"ive" $o"ed / hou"s a da% he

"ossed f"o' P! to P!, the"eb% "eceivin a sha"e of f"o' P: to P1! fo" the pe"iod of t$ent%-fou" hou"s.

*he "eason iven b% the t"ial cou"t in dis'issin the co'plaint is that the defendant bein enaed in the

ta&i o" t"anspo"tation business $hich is a public utilit%, ca'e unde" the e&ception p"ovided b% the Eiht-

+ou" 5abo" 5a$ 7Co''on$ealth Act No. 8; and because plaintiffs did not $o" on a sala"% basis,

that is to sa%, the% had no fi&ed o" "eula" sala"% o" "e'une"ation othe" than the /! pe" cent of thei" "oss

7/23/2019 cases pfr


ea"nins (thei" situation $as the"efo"e p"acticall% si'ila" to piece $o"e"s and hence, outside the a'bit of

a"ticle 0!/ of the Code of Co''e"ce.(

<o" pu"poses of "efe"ence $e a"e "ep"oducin the pe"tinent p"ovisions of the Eiht-+ou" 5abo" 5a$,

na'el%, sections 1 to .

3EC*I2N 1. *he leal $o"in da% fo" an% pe"son e'plo%ed b% anothe" shall not be 'o"e than

eiht hou"s dail%. )hen the $o" is not continuous, the ti'e du"in $hich the labo"e" is not

$o"in and can leave his $o"in place and can "est co'pletel% shall not be counted.

3EC. /. *his Act shall appl% to all pe"sons e'plo%ed in an% indust"% o" occupation, $hethe"

public o" p"ivate, $ith the e&ception of fa"' labo"e"s, labo"e"s $ho p"efe" to be paid on piece

$o" basis, do'estic se"vants and pe"sons in the pe"sonal se"vice of anothe" and 'e'be"s of the

fa'il% of the e'plo%e" $o"in fo" hi'.

3EC. 0. )o" 'a% be pe"fo"'ed be%ond eiht hou"s a da% in case of actual o" i'pendin

e'e"encies, caused b% se"ious accidents, fi"e flood, t%phoon, ea"thuaes, epide'ic, o" othe"

disaste" o" cala'it% in o"de" to p"event loss of life and p"ope"t% o" i''inent dane" to public

safet%; o" in case of u"ent $o" to be pe"fo"'ed on the 'achines, euip'ent, o" installations in

o"de" to avoid a se"ious loss $hich the e'plo%e" $ould othe"$ise suffe", o" so'e othe" 6ust cause

of a si'ila" natu"e; but in all cases the labo"e"s and the e'plo%ees shall be entitled to "eceive

co'pensation fo" the ove"ti'e $o" pe"fo"'ed at the sa'e "ate as thei" "eula" $aes o" sala"%,

plus at least t$ent%-five pe" centu' additional.

In case of national e'e"enc% the =ove"n'ent is e'po$e"ed to establish "ules and "eulations

fo" the ope"ation of the plants and facto"ies and to dete"'ine the $aes to be paid the labo"e"s.

3EC. . No pe"son, fi"', o" co"po"ation, business establish'ent o" place o" cente" of $o" shall

co'pel an e'plo%ee o" labo"e" to $o" du"in 3unda%s and leal holida%s, unless he is paid an

additional su' of at least t$ent%-five pe" centu' of his "eula" "e'une"ation> Provided

however, *hat this p"ohibition shall not appl% to public utilities pe"fo"'in so'e public se"vice

such as suppl%in as, elect"icit%, po$e", $ate", o" p"ovidin 'eans of t"anspo"tation o"

co''unication.

?nde" section , as a public utilit%, the defendant could have his chauffeu"s $o" on 3unda%s and leal

holida%s $ithout pa%in the' an additional su' of at least / pe" cent of thei" "eula" "e'une"ation> but

that $ith "efe"ence onl% to $o" pe"fo"'ed on 3unda%s and holida%s. If the $o" done on such da%s

e&ceeds : hou"s a da%, then the Eiht-+ou" 5abo" 5a$ $ould ope"ate, p"ovided of cou"se that plaintiffsca'e unde" section / of the said la$. 3o that the uestion to be decided he"e is $hethe" o" not plaintiffs

a"e entitled to e&t"a co'pensation fo" $o" pe"fo"'ed in e&cess of : hou"s a da%, 3unda%s and holida%s

included.

It $ill be noticed that the last pa"t of section 0 of Co''on$ealth Act p"ovides fo" e&t"a

co'pensation fo" ove"-ti'e $o" (at the sa'e "ate as thei" regular wages or salary, plus at least t$ent%-

five pe" centu' additional@( and that section / of the sa'e act e&cludes application the"eof labo"e"s $ho

7/23/2019 cases pfr


p"efe""ed to be on piece work basis. *his connotes that a labo"e" o" e'plo%ee $ith no fi&ed sala"%, $aes

o" "e'une"ation but "eceivin as co'pensation f"o' his e'plo%e" unce"tain and va"iable a'ount

dependin upon the $o" done o" the "esult of said $o" 7piece $o"8 i""espective of the a'ount of ti'e

e'plo%ed, is not cove"ed b% the Eiht-+ou" 5abo" 5a$ and is not entitled to e&t"a co'pensation should

he $o" in e&cess of : hou"s a da%. And this see's to be the condition of e'plo%'ent of the plaintiffs. A

d"ive" in the ta&i business of the defendant, lie the plaintiffs, in one da% could ope"ate his ta&i cab eihthou"s, o" less than eiht hou"s o" in e&cess of : hou"s, o" even / hou"s on 3atu"da%s, 3unda%s, and

holida%s, $ith no li'it o" "est"iction othe" than his desi"e, inclination and state of health and ph%sical

endu"ance. +e could d"ive continuousl% o" inte"'ittentl%, s%ste'aticall% o" haphaa"dl%, fast o" slo$, etc.

dependin upon his e&clusive $ish o" inclination. 2ne da% $hen he feels st"on, active and enthusiastic

he $o"s lon, continuousl%, $ith dilience and indust"% and 'aes conside"able "oss "etu"ns and

"eceives as 'uch as his /! pe" cent co''ission. Anothe" da% $hen he feels despondent, "un do$n, $ea

o" la% and $ants to "est bet$een t"ips and $o"s fo" less nu'be" of hou"s, his "oss "etu"ns a"e less and

so is his co''ission. In othe" $o"ds, his co'pensation fo" the da% depends upon the "esult of his $o",

$hich in tu"n depends on the a'ount of indust"%, intellience and e&pe"ience applied to it, "athe" than the

pe"iod of ti'e e'plo%ed. In sho"t, he has no fi&ed sala"% o" $aes. In this $e a"ee $ith the lea"ned t"ial

cou"t p"esided b% #ude <elicisi'o 2ca'po $hich 'aes the follo$in findins and obse"vations of this

point.

. . . As al"ead% stated, thei" ea"nins $e"e in the fo"' of co''ission based on the "oss "eceipts

of the da%. *hei" pa"ticipation in 'ost cases depended upon thei" o$n indust"%. 3o 'uch so that

the 'o"e hou"s the% sta%ed on the "oad, the "eate" the "oss "etu"ns and the hihe" thei"

co''issions. *he% have no fi&ed hou"s of labo". *he% can "eti"e at pleasu"e, the% not bein paid a

fi&ed sala"% on the hou"l%, dail%, $eel% o" 'onthl% basis.

It "esults that the $o"in hou"s of the plaintiffs as ta&i d"ive"s $e"e enti"el% cha"acte"ied b% its

i""eula"it%, as distinuished f"o' the specific "eula" "e'une"ation p"edicated on specific and"eula" hou"s of $o" of facto"ies and co''e"cial e'plo%ees.

In the case of the plaintiffs, it is the "esult of thei" labo", not the labo" itself, $hich dete"'ines

thei" co''issions. *he% $o"ed unde" no co'pulsion of tu"nin a fi&ed inco'e fo" each iven

da%. . . ..

In an opinion dated #une 1, 1909 72pinion No. 118 'odified b% 2pinion No. //, se"ies 19!, dated #une

11, 19!, the 3ec"eta"% of #ustice held that chauffeu"s of the Manila ello$ *a&icab Co. $ho (obse"ved in

a loose $a% ce"tain $o"in hou"s dail%,( and (the ti'e the% "epo"t fo" $o" as $ell as the ti'e the% leave

$o" $as left to thei" disc"etion.,( "eceivin no fi&ed sala"% but onl% /! pe" cent of thei" "oss ea"nins,

'a% be conside"ed as piece $o"e"s and the"efo"e not cove"ed b% the p"ovisions of the Eiht-+ou" 5abo"5a$.

*he )ae Ad'inist"ation 3e"vice of the 4epa"t'ent of 5abo" in its Inte"p"etative Bulletin No. / dated

Ma% /:, 190, unde" (2ve"ti'e Co'pensation,( in section 0 the"eof entitled Cove"ae, sa%s>

*he p"ovisions of this bulletin on overtime compensation shall appl% to all pe"sons e'plo%ed in

an% indust"% o" occupation, $hethe" public o" p"ivate, $ith the exception of fa"' labo"e"s, non-

7/23/2019 cases pfr


a"icultu"al labo"e"s o" e'plo%ees $ho a"e paid on piece $o", cont"act, paiao, tas

o" commission basis, do'estic se"vants and pe"sons in the pe"sonal se"vice of anothe" and

'e'be"s of the fa'il% of the e'plo%e" $o"in fo" hi'.

<"o' all this, to us it is clea" that the clai' of the plaintiffs-appellants fo" ove"ti'e co'pensation unde"

the Eiht-+ou" 5abo" 5a$ has no valid suppo"t.

As to the 'onth pa% 7'esada8 unde" a"ticle 0!/ of the Code of Co''e"ce, a"ticle //! of the ne$ Civil

Code 7Republic Act 0:8 appea"s to have "epealed said A"ticle 0!/ $hen it "epealed the p"ovisions of the

Code of Co''e"ce ove"nin Aenc%. *his "epeal too place on Auust 0!, 19!, $hen the ne$ Civil

Code $ent into effect, that is, one %ea" afte" its publication in the Official a!ette. *he alleed

te"'ination of se"vices of the plaintiffs b% the defendant too place acco"din to the co'plaint on

3epte'be" , 19!, that is to sa%, afte" the "epeal of A"ticle 0!/ $hich the% invoe. Mo"eove", said A"ticle

0!/ of the Code of Co''e"ce, assu'in that it $e"e still in fo"ce speas of (sala"% co""espondin to said

'onth.( co''onl% no$n as ('esada.( If the plaintiffs he"ein had no fi&ed sala"% eithe" b% the da%, $ee

o" 'onth, then co'putation of the 'onth@s sala"% pa%able $ould be i'possible. A"ticle 0!/ "efe"s to

e'plo%ees "eceivin a fi&ed sala"%. 4". A"tu"o M. *olentino in his boo entitled (Co''enta"ies and

#u"isp"udence on the Co''e"cial 5a$s of the Philippines,( Dol. 1, th edition, p. 1!, sa%s that a"ticle

0!/ is not applicable to e'plo%ees $ithout fi&ed sala"%. )e uote

"mployees not entitled to indemnity. *his a"ticle "efe"s onl% to those $ho a"e enaed unde"

sala"% basis, and not to those $ho onl% "eceive co'pensation euivalent to $hateve" se"vice the%

'a% "ende". 71 Malaa""ia 01, citin decision of A"entina Cou"t of Appeals on Co''e"cial

Matte"s.8

In vie$ of the fo"eoin, the o"de" appealed f"o' is he"eb% affi"'ed, $ith costs aainst appellants.

Pablo, #eng!on, Padilla, Reyes, $ugo, #autista %ngelo, Labrador, &oncepcion, and 'iokno, $$., concu".

Paras, &.$., concu"s in the "esult.


SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-63915 April 24, 19$5

LOREN%O M. TA&AA, A'RA(AM ). SARMIENTO, *+ MOEMENT O) ATTORNE"S)OR 'ROT(ER(OO, INTEGRIT" AN NATIONALISM, INC. MA'INI/, petitione"s,

vs.

(ON. !UAN C. TUERA, i+ i *p*i * E7i8 Ai*+ o Pri+, (ON. !OAUINENUS, i+ i *p*i * p7 E7i8 Ai*+ o Pri+ , MELUIAES P. E LACRU%, i+ i *p*i * iror, M*l**:*+; Ror O<<i, *+ )LORENO S. PA'LO, i+ i*p*i * iror, '7r*7 o< Pri+i+;, "espondents.

7/23/2019 cases pfr


ESCOLIN, J.#

Invoin the people@s "iht to be info"'ed on 'atte"s of public conce"n, a "iht "econied in 3ection ,

A"ticle ID of the 190 Philippine Constitution,1

as $ell as the p"inciple that la$s to be valid andenfo"ceable 'ust be published in the 2fficial =aette o" othe"$ise effectivel% p"o'ulated, petitione"s

see a $"it of 'anda'us to co'pel "espondent public officials to publish, andFo" cause the publication in

the 2fficial =aette of va"ious p"esidential dec"ees, lette"s of inst"uctions, ene"al o"de"s, p"ocla'ations,

e&ecutive o"de"s, lette" of i'ple'entation and ad'inist"ative o"de"s.

3pecificall%, the publication of the follo$in p"esidential issuances is souht>

aG P"esidential 4ec"ees Nos. 1/, //, 0, 0:, 9, , 1!0, 11, 19, 1:, 19, /!!, /0,

/, /:, /9:, 0!0, 01/, 0/, 0/, 0/, 00, 0, 0:, 09, 0!, 01, 0:, !, !, 1,

/, /9, , , 0, :, 91, !0, !, /1, /:, 1, , 0, , 9, 99, ,

:, 1, 1:, 01, 00, 90, :!!, :!/, :0, :0, 9/0, 90, 91, 1!1-1!0!, 1!!, 1!!-

1!1, 1!:, 110, 11, 11, 1//, 1/, 1/!, 1/:, 1/9, 10!!, 1, 1/, 1:!:,

1:1!, 1:10-1:1, 1:19-1:/, 1:/9-1:!, 1:/-1:.

bG 5ette" of Inst"uctions Nos.> 1!, 09, 9, /, 1!, 1!:, 11, 10!, 10, 11, 1!, 10, 1,

11, 10, 1:!, 1:, 1::, 19/, 190, 199, /!/, /!, /!, /!9, /11-/10, /1-//, //-//:,

/01-/09, /1-/, /:, /1, /0-/1, /0-/9, /1-/0, /-/:0, /:-/:9, /91, /90,

/9-/99, 0!1-0!0, 0!9, 01/-01, 0/, 0/, 00, 0, 09, 0, 0:, 0/, 0, 0!, 0:/,

0:, 0:, 09-09, !, 0:-!, - , 0, :, ::, 9:, !1, 099, /, 1, ,

:, 9, 99, !!, !/, !9, 1!, 11, 1/, 1, 1, /, , !/, 1/-10, /, :0-

:09, ::-:9, ::1, ::/, 909-9!, 9,99,119-11:,11:!-1/:.

cG =ene"al 2"de"s Nos.> 1, /, :, 9, !, /, 0, H .

dG P"ocla'ation Nos.> 11/, 11, 11, 111, 119, 1/!, 1/:1, 1019-1/, 1/9, 10/,

10, 10:, 1!-1, 1!-1:, 11-1::, 19!-19, 19-1!!, 1!-1!9,

11/-1/:, 10!-19, 19-19, 19-1!1, 1!-1/0, 101-10, 10-1/,

1, 1-11, 1/, 1, 1/, 1-1:, 1:9-19, 19, 1:!!, 1:!/-1:!,

1:!-1:!, 1:1/-1:1, 1:1, 1:/-1:/, 1:/9, 1:01-1:0/, 1:0-1:0, 1:09-1:!,

1:0-1:, 1:-1:, 1:9, 1:0-1::, 1:!, 1:, 1::, 1:!, 1:-1::9, 1:9/,

19!!, 191:, 19/0, 1900, 19/, 190, 19-19, 19:-19:, 19:-/!/:, /!0!-/!,

/!-/1, /1-/11, /10-//.

eG E&ecutive 2"de"s Nos.> 11, 10, 1, /, /9-, - 1, -9/, 9-!,

!9-1!, //, /-/:, 01-0/, 0, 0:, 0-, 9, 1-0, !, 0, -:,

!, , 90, 9, 9:-!, !9, 11- , 9-, 9-!0, !-!, 1/-:, ::-

:/, :-:.

7/23/2019 cases pfr


fG 5ette"s of I'ple'entation Nos.> , :, 9, 1!, 11-//, /-/, 09, !, 1, 9, , :!-:1, 9/,

9, 9, 1!, 1/!, 1//, 1/0.

G Ad'inist"ative 2"de"s Nos.> 0, 0:, 0/-0, 0!- 0:, 0:!-00, 0-09.

*he "espondents, th"ouh the 3olicito" =ene"al, $ould have this case dis'issed out"iht on the "oundthat petitione"s have no leal pe"sonalit% o" standin to b"in the instant petition. *he vie$ is sub'itted

that in the absence of an% sho$in that petitione"s a"e pe"sonall% and di"ectl% affected o" p"e6udiced b%

the alleed non-publication of the p"esidential issuances in uestion 2 said petitione"s a"e $ithout the

"euisite leal pe"sonalit% to institute this 'anda'us p"oceedin, the% a"e not bein (a"ieved pa"ties(

$ithin the 'eanin of 3ection 0, Rule of the Rules of Cou"t, $hich $e uote>

3EC. 0. Petition for Mandamus.)hen an% t"ibunal, co"po"ation, boa"d o" pe"son

unla$full% nelects the pe"fo"'ance of an act $hich the la$ specificall% en6oins as a

dut% "esultin f"o' an office, t"ust, o" station, o" unla$full% e&cludes anothe" f"o' the

use a "d en6o%'ent of a "iht o" office to $hich such othe" is entitled, and the"e is no

othe" plain, speed% and adeuate "e'ed% in the o"dina"% cou"se of la$, the pe"son

a"ieved the"eb% 'a% file a ve"ified petition in the p"ope" cou"t allein the facts $ith

ce"taint% and p"a%in that 6ud'ent be "ende"ed co''andin the defendant, i''ediatel%

o" at so'e othe" specified ti'e, to do the act "eui"ed to be done to P"otect the "ihts of

the petitione", and to pa% the da'aes sustained b% the petitione" b% "eason of the

$"onful acts of the defendant.

?pon the othe" hand, petitione"s 'aintain that since the sub6ect of the petition conce"ns a public "iht and

its ob6ect is to co'pel the pe"fo"'ance of a public dut%, the% need not sho$ an% specific inte"est fo" thei"

petition to be iven due cou"se.

*he issue posed is not one of fi"st i'p"ession. As ea"l% as the 191! case of (everino vs. overnor

eneral , 3 this Cou"t held that $hile the ene"al "ule is that (a $"it of 'anda'us $ould be "anted to a

p"ivate individual onl% in those cases $he"e he has so'e p"ivate o" pa"ticula" inte"est to be subse"ved, o"

so'e pa"ticula" "iht to be p"otected, independent of that $hich he holds $ith the public at la"e,( and (it

is fo" the public office"s e&clusivel% to appl% fo" the $"it $hen public "ihts a"e to be subse"ved

Mithchell vs. Boa"d'en, 9 M.e., 9G,( neve"theless, ($hen the uestion is one of public "iht and the

ob6ect of the 'anda'us is to p"ocu"e the enfo"ce'ent of a public dut%, the people a"e "ea"ded as the "eal

pa"t% in inte"est and the "elato" at $hose instiation the p"oceedins a"e instituted need not sho$ that he

has an% leal o" special inte"est in the "esult, it bein sufficient to sho$ that he is a citien and as such

inte"ested in the e&ecution of the la$s +ih, E&t"ao"dina"% 5eal Re'edies, 0"d ed., sec. 01G.

*hus, in said case, this Cou"t "econied the "elato" 5ope 3eve"ino, a p"ivate individual, as a p"ope" pa"t%

to the 'anda'us p"oceedins b"ouht to co'pel the =ove"no" =ene"al to call a special election fo" the

position of 'unicipal p"esident in the to$n of 3ila%, Ne"os 2ccidental. 3peain fo" this Cou"t, M".

#ustice ="ant *. *"ent said>

)e a"e the"efo"e of the opinion that the $eiht of autho"it% suppo"ts the p"oposition that

the "elato" is a p"ope" pa"t% to p"oceedins of this cha"acte" $hen a public "iht is souht

7/23/2019 cases pfr


to be enfo"ced. If the ene"al "ule in A'e"ica $e"e othe"$ise, $e thin that it $ould not

be applicable to the case at ba" fo" the "eason @that it is al$a%s dane"ous to appl% a

ene"al "ule to a pa"ticula" case $ithout eepin in 'ind the "eason fo" the "ule, because,

if unde" the pa"ticula" ci"cu'stances the "eason fo" the "ule does not e&ist, the "ule itself

is not applicable and "eliance upon the "ule 'a% $ell lead to e""o"@

No "eason e&ists in the case at ba" fo" appl%in the ene"al "ule insisted upon b% counsel

fo" the "espondent. *he ci"cu'stances $hich su""ound this case a"e diffe"ent f"o' those

in the ?nited 3tates, inas'uch as if the "elato" is not a p"ope" pa"t% to these p"oceedins

no othe" pe"son could be, as $e have seen that it is not the dut% of the la$ office" of the

=ove"n'ent to appea" and "ep"esent the people in cases of this cha"acte".

*he "easons iven b% the Cou"t in "econiin a p"ivate citien@s leal pe"sonalit% in the afo"e'entioned

case appl% sua"el% to the p"esent petition. Clea"l%, the "iht souht to be enfo"ced b% petitione"s he"ein is

a public "iht "econied b% no less than the funda'ental la$ of the land. If petitione"s $e"e not allo$ed

to institute this p"oceedin, it $ould indeed be difficult to conceive of an% othe" pe"son to initiate the

sa'e, conside"in that the 3olicito" =ene"al, the ove"n'ent office" ene"all% e'po$e"ed to "ep"esent the

people, has ente"ed his appea"ance fo" "espondents in this case.

Respondents fu"the" contend that publication in the 2fficial =aette is not a sine ua non "eui"e'ent fo"

the effectivit% of la$s $he"e the la$s the'selves p"ovide fo" thei" o$n effectivit% dates. It is thus

sub'itted that since the p"esidential issuances in uestion contain special p"ovisions as to the date the%

a"e to tae effect, publication in the 2fficial =aette is not indispensable fo" thei" effectivit%. *he point

st"essed is ancho"ed on A"ticle / of the Civil Code>

A"t. /. 5a$s shall tae effect afte" fifteen da%s follo$in the co'pletion of thei"

publication in the 2fficial =aette, unless it is othe"$ise p"ovided, ...

*he inte"p"etation iven b% "espondent is in acco"d $ith this Cou"t@s const"uction of said a"ticle. In a lon

line of decisions, 4 this Cou"t has "uled that publication in the 2fficial =aette is necessa"% in those cases

$he"e the leislation itself does not p"ovide fo" its effectivit% date-fo" then the date of publication is

'ate"ial fo" dete"'inin its date of effectivit%, $hich is the fifteenth da% follo$in its publication-but not

$hen the la$ itself p"ovides fo" the date $hen it oes into effect.

Respondents@ a"u'ent, ho$eve", is loicall% co""ect onl% insofa" as it euates the effectivit% of la$s $ith

the fact of publication. Conside"ed in the liht of othe" statutes applicable to the issue at hand, the

conclusion is easil% "eached that said A"ticle / does not p"eclude the "eui"e'ent of publication in the

2fficial =aette, even if the la$ itself p"ovides fo" the date of its effectivit%. *hus, 3ection 1 ofCo''on$ealth Act 0: p"ovides as follo$s>

3ection 1. *he"e shall be published in the 2fficial =aette 1G all i'po"tant leisiative

acts and "esolutions of a public natu"e of the, Con"ess of the Philippines; /G all

e&ecutive and ad'inist"ative o"de"s and p"ocla'ations, e&cept such as have no ene"al

applicabilit%; 0G decisions o" abst"acts of decisions of the 3up"e'e Cou"t and the Cou"t

of Appeals as 'a% be dee'ed b% said cou"ts of sufficient i'po"tance to be so published;

7/23/2019 cases pfr


G such docu'ents o" classes of docu'ents as 'a% be "eui"ed so to be published b%

la$; and G such docu'ents o" classes of docu'ents as the P"esident of the Philippines

shall dete"'ine f"o' ti'e to ti'e to have ene"al applicabilit% and leal effect, o" $hich

he 'a% autho"ie so to be published. ...

*he clea" ob6ect of the above-uoted p"ovision is to ive the ene"al public adeuate notice of the va"iousla$s $hich a"e to "eulate thei" actions and conduct as citiens. )ithout such notice and publication,

the"e $ould be no basis fo" the application of the 'a&i' (ino"antia leis non e&cusat.( It $ould be the

heiht of in6ustice to punish o" othe"$ise bu"den a citien fo" the t"ans"ession of a la$ of $hich he had

no notice $hatsoeve", not even a const"uctive one.

Pe"haps at no ti'e since the establish'ent of the Philippine Republic has the publication of la$s taen so

vital sinificance that at this ti'e $hen the people have besto$ed upon the P"esident a po$e" he"etofo"e

en6o%ed solel% b% the leislatu"e. )hile the people a"e ept ab"east b% the 'ass 'edia of the debates and

delibe"ations in the Batasan Pa'bansaand fo" the dilient ones, "ead% access to the leislative "eco"ds

no such publicit% acco'panies the la$-'ain p"ocess of the P"esident. *hus, $ithout publication, the

people have no 'eans of no$in $hat p"esidential dec"ees have actuall% been p"o'ulated, 'uch less a

definite $a% of info"'in the'selves of the specific contents and te&ts of such dec"ees. As the 3up"e'e

Cou"t of 3pain "uled> (Ba6o la deno'inacion ene"ica de le%es, se co'p"enden ta'bien los "ela'entos,

Reales dec"etos, Inst"ucciones, Ci"cula"es % Reales o"dines dictadas de confo"'idad con las 'is'as po"

el =obie"no en uso de su potestad. 5

*he ve"% fi"st clause of 3ection I of Co''on$ealth Act 0: "eads> (*he"e shall be published in the

2fficial =aette ... .( *he $o"d (shall( used the"ein i'poses upon "espondent officials an i'pe"ative dut%.

*hat dut% 'ust be enfo"ced if the Constitutional "iht of the people to be info"'ed on 'atte"s of public

conce"n is to be iven substance and "ealit%. *he la$ itself 'aes a list of $hat should be published in the

2fficial =aette. 3uch listin, to ou" 'ind, leaves "espondents $ith no disc"etion $hatsoeve" as to $hat'ust be included o" e&cluded f"o' such publication.

*he publication of all p"esidential issuances (of a public natu"e( o" (of ene"al applicabilit%( is 'andated

b% la$. 2bviousl%, p"esidential dec"ees that p"ovide fo" fines, fo"feitu"es o" penalties fo" thei" violation o"

othe"$ise i'pose a bu"den o". the people, such as ta& and "evenue 'easu"es, fall $ithin this cateo"%.

2the" p"esidential issuances $hich appl% onl% to pa"ticula" pe"sons o" class of pe"sons such as

ad'inist"ative and e&ecutive o"de"s need not be published on the assu'ption that the% have been

ci"cula"ied to all conce"ned. 6

It is needless to add that the publication of p"esidential issuances (of a public natu"e( o" (of ene"al

applicabilit%( is a "eui"e'ent of due p"ocess. It is a "ule of la$ that befo"e a pe"son 'a% be bound b%la$, he 'ust fi"st be officiall% and specificall% info"'ed of its contents. As #ustice Claudio *eehanee

said in Peralta vs. &OM"L"& =>

In a ti'e of p"olife"atin dec"ees, o"de"s and lette"s of inst"uctions $hich all fo"' pa"t of

the la$ of the land, the "eui"e'ent of due p"ocess and the Rule of 5a$ de'and that the

2fficial =aette as the official ove"n'ent "eposito"% p"o'ulate and publish the te&ts of

7/23/2019 cases pfr


all such dec"ees, o"de"s and inst"uctions so that the people 'a% no$ $he"e to obtain

thei" official and specific contents.

*he Cou"t the"efo"e decla"es that p"esidential issuances of ene"al application, $hich have not been

published, shall have no fo"ce and effect. 3o'e 'e'be"s of the Cou"t, uite app"ehensive about the

possible unsettlin effect this decision 'iht have on acts done in "eliance of the validit% of those p"esidential dec"ees $hich $e"e published onl% du"in the pendenc% of this petition, have put the uestion

as to $hethe" the Cou"t@s decla"ation of invalidit% appl% to P.4.s $hich had been enfo"ced o" i'ple'ented

p"io" to thei" publication. *he ans$e" is all too fa'ilia". In si'ila" situations in the past this Cou"t had

taen the p"a'atic and "ealistic cou"se set fo"th in &hicot &ounty 'rainage 'istrict vs. #axter #ank $ to

$it>

*he cou"ts belo$ have p"oceeded on the theo"% that the Act of Con"ess, havin been

found to be unconstitutional, $as not a la$; that it $as inope"ative, confe""in no "ihts

and i'posin no duties, and hence affo"din no basis fo" the challened dec"ee. No"ton v.

3helb% Count%, 11: ?.3. /, /; Chicao, 1. H 5. R%. Co. v. +acett, //: ?.3. 9,

. It is uite clea", ho$eve", that such b"oad state'ents as to the effect of a

dete"'ination of unconstitutionalit% 'ust be taen $ith ualifications. *he actual

e&istence of a statute, p"io" to such a dete"'ination, is an ope"ative fact and 'a% have

conseuences $hich cannot 6ustl% be ino"ed. *he past cannot al$a%s be e"ased b% a ne$

6udicial decla"ation. *he effect of the subseuent "ulin as to invalidit% 'a% have to be

conside"ed in va"ious aspects-$ith "espect to pa"ticula" conduct, p"ivate and official.

Juestions of "ihts clai'ed to have beco'e vested, of status, of p"io" dete"'inations

dee'ed to have finalit% and acted upon acco"dinl%, of public polic% in the liht of the

natu"e both of the statute and of its p"evious application, de'and e&a'ination. *hese

uestions a"e a'on the 'ost difficult of those $hich have enaed the attention of

cou"ts, state and fede"al and it is 'anifest f"o' nu'e"ous decisions that an all-inclusivestate'ent of a p"inciple of absolute "et"oactive invalidit% cannot be 6ustified.

Consistentl% $ith the above p"inciple, this Cou"t in Rutter vs. "steban 9 sustained the "iht of a pa"t%

unde" the Mo"ato"iu' 5a$, albeit said "iht had acc"ued in his favo" befo"e said la$ $as decla"ed

unconstitutional b% this Cou"t.

3i'ila"l%, the i'ple'entationFenfo"ce'ent of p"esidential dec"ees p"io" to thei" publication in the 2fficial

=aette is (an ope"ative fact $hich 'a% have conseuences $hich cannot be 6ustl% ino"ed. *he past

cannot al$a%s be e"ased b% a ne$ 6udicial decla"ation ... that an all-inclusive state'ent of a p"inciple of

absolute "et"oactive invalidit% cannot be 6ustified.(

<"o' the "epo"t sub'itted to the Cou"t b% the Cle" of Cou"t, it appea"s that of the p"esidential dec"ees

souht b% petitione"s to be published in the 2fficial =aette, onl% P"esidential 4ec"ees Nos. 1!19 to 1!0!,

inclusive, 1/:, and 190 to 1909, inclusive, have not been so published. 10 Neithe" the sub6ect 'atte"s

no" the te&ts of these P4s can be asce"tained since no copies the"eof a"e available. But $hateve" thei"

sub6ect 'atte" 'a% be, it is undisputed that none of these unpublished P4s has eve" been i'ple'ented o"

enfo"ced b% the ove"n'ent. In Pesigan vs. %ngeles, 11 the Cou"t, th"ouh #ustice Ra'on Auino, "uled

7/23/2019 cases pfr


that (publication is necessa"% to app"ise the public of the contents of penalG "eulations and 'ae the

said penalties bindin on the pe"sons affected the"eb%. ( *he coenc% of this holdin is appa"entl%

"econied b% "espondent officials conside"in the 'anifestation in thei" co''ent that (the ove"n'ent,

as a 'atte" of polic%, "ef"ains f"o' p"osecutin violations of c"i'inal la$s until the sa'e shall have been

published in the 2fficial =aette o" in so'e othe" publication, even thouh so'e c"i'inal la$s p"ovide

that the% shall tae effect i''ediatel%.

)+ERE<2RE, the Cou"t he"eb% o"de"s "espondents to publish in the 2fficial =aette all unpublished

p"esidential issuances $hich a"e of ene"al application, and unless so published, the% shall have no

bindin fo"ce and effect.

32 2R4ERE4.

Relova, $., concurs.

%)uino, $., took no part.

&oncepcion, $r., $., is on leave.

Sp*r* Opi+io+

)ERNANO, C.J., concu""in 7$ith ualification8>

*he"e is on the $hole acceptance on '% pa"t of the vie$s e&p"essed in the abl% $"itten opinion of #ustice

Escolin. I a' unable, ho$eve", to concu" insofa" as it $ould unualifiedl% i'pose the "eui"e'ent of

publication in the 2fficial =aette fo" unpublished (p"esidential issuances( to have bindin fo"ce and

effect.

I shall e&plain $h%.

1. It is of cou"se t"ue that $ithout the "euisite publication, a due p"ocess uestion $ould a"ise if 'ade to

appl% adve"sel% to a pa"t% $ho is not even a$a"e of the e&istence of an% leislative o" e&ecutive acthavin the fo"ce and effect of la$. M% point is that such publication "eui"ed need not be confined to the

2fficial =aette. <"o' the p"a'atic standpoint, the"e is an advantae to be ained. It conduces to

ce"taint%. *hat is too be ad'itted. It does not follo$, ho$eve", that failu"e to do so $ould in all cases and

unde" all ci"cu'stances "esult in a statute, p"esidential dec"ee o" an% othe" e&ecutive act of the sa'e

cateo"% bein be"eft of an% bindin fo"ce and effect. *o so hold $ould, fo" 'e, "aise a constitutional

uestion. 3uch a p"onounce'ent $ould lend itself to the inte"p"etation that such a leislative o"

p"esidential act is be"eft of the att"ibute of effectivit% unless published in the 2fficial =aette. *he"e is no

7/23/2019 cases pfr


such "eui"e'ent in the Constitution as #ustice Plana so aptl% pointed out. It is t"ue that $hat is decided

no$ applies onl% to past (p"esidential issuances(. Nonetheless, this cla"ification is, to '% 'ind, needed to

avoid an% possible 'isconception as to $hat is "eui"ed fo" an% statute o" p"esidential act to be i'p"essed

$ith bindin fo"ce o" effectivit%.

/. It is uite unde"standable then $h% I concu" in the sepa"ate opinion of #ustice Plana. Its fi"st pa"a"aphsets fo"th $hat to 'e is the constitutional doct"ine applicable to this case. *hus> (*he Philippine

Constitution does not "eui"e the publication of la$s as a p"e"euisite fo" thei" effectivit%, unlie so'e

Constitutions else$he"e. It 'a% be said thouh that the ua"antee of due p"ocess "eui"es notice of la$s to

affected Pa"ties befo"e the% can be bound the"eb%; but such notice is not necessa"il% b% publication in the

2fficial =aette. *he due p"ocess clause is not that p"ecise. 1 I a' lie$ise in a"ee'ent $ith its closin

pa"a"aph> (In fine, I concu" in the 'a6o"it% decision to the e&tent that it "eui"es notice befo"e la$s

beco'e effective, fo" no pe"son should be bound b% a la$ $ithout notice. *his is ele'enta"% fai"ness.

+o$eve", I be to disa"ee insofa" as it holds that such notice shall be b% publication in the 2fficial

=aette. 2

0. It suffices, as $as stated b% #ude 5ea"ned +and, that la$ as the co''and of the ove"n'ent ('ust be

asce"tainable in so'e fo"' if it is to be enfo"ced at all. 3 It $ould indeed be to "educe it to the level of

'e"e futilit%, as pointed out b% #ustice Ca"doo, (if it is unno$n and unno$able. 4 Publication, to

"epeat, is thus essential. )hat I a' not p"epa"ed to subsc"ibe to is the doct"ine that it 'ust be in the

2fficial =aette. *o be su"e once published the"ein the"e is the asce"tainable 'ode of dete"'inin the

e&act date of its effectivit%. 3till fo" 'e that does not dispose of the uestion of $hat is the 6u"al effect of

past p"esidential dec"ees o" e&ecutive acts not so published. <o" p"io" the"eto, it could be that pa"ties

a$a"e of thei" e&istence could have conducted the'selves in acco"dance $ith thei" p"ovisions. If no leal

conseuences could attach due to lac of publication in the 2fficial =aette, then se"ious p"oble's could

a"ise. P"evious t"ansactions based on such (P"esidential Issuances( could be open to uestion. Matte"s

dee'ed settled could still be inui"ed into. I a' not p"epa"ed to hold that such an effect is conte'plated b% ou" decision. )he"e such p"esidential dec"ee o" e&ecutive act is 'ade the basis of a c"i'inal

p"osecution, then, of cou"se, its e& post facto cha"acte" beco'es evident. 5 In civil cases thouh,

"et"oactivit% as such is not conclusive on the due p"ocess aspect. *he"e 'ust still be a sho$in of

a"bit"a"iness. Mo"eove", $he"e the challened p"esidential dec"ee o" e&ecutive act $as issued unde" the

police po$e", the non-i'pai"'ent clause of the Constitution 'a% not al$a%s be successfull% invoed.

*he"e 'ust still be that p"ocess of balancin to dete"'ine $hethe" o" not it could in such a case be tainted

b% infi"'it%. 6 In t"aditional te"'inolo%, the"e could a"ise then a uestion of unconstitutional application.

*hat is as fa" as it oes.

. 5et 'e 'ae the"efo"e that '% ualified concu""ence oes no fu"the" than to affi"' that publication is

essential to the effectivit% of a leislative o" e&ecutive act of a ene"al application. I a' not in a"ee'ent

$ith the vie$ that such publication 'ust be in the 2fficial =aette. *he Civil Code itself in its A"ticle /

e&p"essl% "econies that the "ule as to la$s tain effect afte" fifteen da%s follo$in the co'pletion of

thei" publication in the 2fficial =aette is sub6ect to this e&ception, (unless it is othe"$ise p"ovided.(

Mo"eove", the Civil Code is itself onl% a leislative enact'ent, Republic Act No. 0:. It does not and

cannot have the 6u"idical fo"ce of a constitutional co''and. A late" leislative o" e&ecutive act $hich has

the fo"ce and effect of la$ can leall% p"ovide fo" a diffe"ent "ule.

7/23/2019 cases pfr


. No" can I a"ee $ith the "athe" s$eepin conclusion in the opinion of #ustice Escolin that p"esidential

dec"ees and e&ecutive acts not thus p"eviousl% published in the 2fficial =aette $ould be devoid of an%

leal cha"acte". *hat $ould be, in '% opinion, to o too fa". It 'a% be f"auht, as ea"lie" noted, $ith

undesi"able conseuences. I find '%self the"efo"e unable to %ield assent to such a p"onounce'ent.

I a' autho"ied to state that #ustices Maasia", Abad 3antos, Cuevas, and Ala'pa% concu" in this sepa"ateopinion.

Makasiar, %bad (antos, &uevas and %lampay, $$., concur.

TEE(AN>EE, J., concu""in>

I concu" $ith the 'ain opinion of M". #ustice Escolin and the concu""in opinion of M'e. #ustice

+e""e"a. *he Rule of 5a$ connotes a bod% of no"'s and la$s published and asce"tainable and of eual

application to all si'ila"l% ci"cu'stances and not sub6ect to a"bit"a"% chane but onl% unde" ce"tain set

p"ocedu"es. *he Cou"t has consistentl% st"essed that (it is an ele'enta"% "ule of fai" pla% and 6ustice that a

"easonable oppo"tunit% to be info"'ed 'ust be affo"ded to the people $ho a"e co''anded to obe% befo"e

the% can be punished fo" its violation, 1 citin the settled p"inciple based on due p"ocess enunciated in

ea"lie" cases that (befo"e the public is bound b% its contents, especiall% its penal p"ovisions, a la$,

"eulation o" ci"cula" 'ust fi"st be published and the people officiall% and speciall% info"'ed of said

contents and its penalties.

)ithout official publication in the 2fficial =aette as "eui"ed b% A"ticle / of the Civil Code and the

Revised Ad'inist"ative Code, the"e $ould be no basis no" 6ustification fo" the co"olla"% "ule of A"ticle 0

of the Civil Code 7based on const"uctive notice that the p"ovisions of the la$ a"e asce"tainable f"o' the public and official "eposito"% $he"e the% a"e dul% published8 that (Ino"ance of the la$ e&cuses no one

f"o' co'pliance the"e$ith.

Respondents@ contention based on a 'is"eadin of A"ticle / of the Civil Code that (onl% la$s $hich a"e

silent as to thei" effectivit% dateG need be published in the 2fficial =aette fo" thei" effectivit%( is

'anifestl% untenable. *he plain te&t and 'eanin of the Civil Code is that (la$s shall tae effect afte"

fifteen da%s follo$in the co'pletion of thei" publication in the 2fficial =aette, unless it is otherwise

provided, * i.e. a diffe"ent effectivit% date is p"ovided b% the la$ itself. *his p"oviso pe"fo"ce "efe"s to a

la$ that has been dul% published pu"suant to the basic constitutional "eui"e'ents of due p"ocess. *he

best e&a'ple of this is the Civil Code itself> the sa'e A"ticle / p"ovides othe"$ise that it (shall tae effect

onl%G one %ea" not 1 da%sG afte" such publication. 2 *o sustain "espondents@ 'is"eadin that ('ost la$so" dec"ees specif% the date of thei" effectivit% and fo" this "eason, publication in the 2fficial =aette is not

necessa"% fo" thei" effectivit% 3 $ould be to nullif% and "ende" nuato"% the Civil Code@s indispensable and

essential "eui"e'ent of p"io" publication in the 2fficial =aette b% the si'ple e&pedient of p"ovidin fo"

i''ediate effectivit% o" an ea"lie" effectivit% date in the la$ itself before the co'pletion of 1 da%s

follo$in its publication $hich is the pe"iod ene"all% fi&ed b% the Civil Code fo" its p"ope"

disse'ination.

7/23/2019 cases pfr


MELENCIO-(ERRERA, J., concu""in>

I a"ee. *he"e cannot be an% uestion but that even if a dec"ee p"ovides fo" a date of effectivit%, it has to

be published. )hat I $ould lie to state in connection $ith that p"oposition is that $hen a date ofeffectivit% is 'entioned in the dec"ee but the dec"ee beco'es effective onl% fifteen 718 da%s afte" its

publication in the 2fficial =aette, it $ill not 'ean that the dec"ee can have "et"oactive effect to the date

of effectivit% 'entioned in the dec"ee itself. *he"e should be no "et"oactivit% if the "et"oactivit% $ill "un

counte" to constitutional "ihts o" shall dest"o% vested "ihts.

PLANA, J., concu""in 7$ith ualification8>

*he Philippine Constitution does not "eui"e the publication of la$s as a p"e"euisite fo" thei" effectivit%,

unlie so'e Constitutions else$he"e. ? It 'a% be said thouh that the ua"antee of due p"ocess "eui"es

notice of la$s to affected pa"ties befo"e the% can be bound the"eb%; but such notice is not necessa"il% b%

publication in the 2fficial =aette. *he due p"ocess clause is not that p"ecise. Neithe" is the publication of

la$s in the Official a!ette "eui"ed b% an% statute as a prere)uisite for their effectivity, if said la$s

al"ead% p"ovide fo" thei" effectivit% date.

A"ticle / of the Civil Code p"ovides that (la$s shall tae effect afte" fifteen da%s follo$in the

co'pletion of thei" publication in the 2fficial =aette, unless it is otherwise provided ( *$o thins 'a%

be said of this p"ovision> <i"stl%, it obviousl% does not appl% to a la$ $ith a built-in p"ovision as to $hen

it $ill tae effect. 3econdl%, it clea"l% "econies that each la$ 'a% p"ovide not onl% a diffe"ent pe"iod fo"

"econin its effectivit% date but also a diffe"ent 'ode of notice. *hus, a la$ 'a% p"esc"ibe that it shall be published else$he"e than in the 2fficial =aette.

Co''on$ealth Act No. 0:, in '% opinion, does not suppo"t the p"oposition that for their

effectivity, la$s 'ust be published in the 2fficial =aette. *he said la$ is si'pl% (An Act to P"ovide fo"

the ?nifo"' Publication and 4ist"ibution of the 2fficial =aette.( Confo"'abl% the"e$ith, it autho"ies

the publication of the 2fficial =aette, dete"'ines its f"euenc%, p"ovides fo" its sale and dist"ibution, and

defines the autho"it% of the 4i"ecto" of P"intin in "elation the"eto. It also enu'e"ates $hat shall be

published in the 2fficial =aette, a'on the', (i'po"tant leislative acts and "esolutions of a public

natu"e of the Con"ess of the Philippines( and (all e&ecutive and ad'inist"ative o"de"s and p"ocla'ations,

e&cept such as have no ene"al applicabilit%.( It is note$o"th% that not all leislative acts a"e "eui"ed to

be published in the 2fficial =aette but onl% (i'po"tant( ones (of a public natu"e.( Mo"eove", the saidla$ does not p"ovide that publication in the 2fficial =aette is essential fo" the effectivit% of la$s. *his is

as it should be, fo" all statutes a"e eual and stand on the sa'e footin. A la$, especiall% an ea"lie" one of

ene"al application such as Co''on$ealth Act No. 0:, cannot nullif% o" "est"ict the ope"ation of a

subseuent statute that has a p"ovision of its o$n as to $hen and ho$ it $ill tae effect. 2nl% a hihe"

la$, $hich is the Constitution, can assu'e that "ole.

7/23/2019 cases pfr


In fine, I concu" in the 'a6o"it% decision to the e&tent that it "eui"es notice befo"e la$s beco'e effective,

fo" no pe"son should be bound b% a la$ $ithout notice. *his is ele'enta"% fai"ness. +o$eve", I be to

disa"ee insofa" as it holds that such notice shall be b% publication in the 2fficial =aette.

&uevas and %lampay, $$., concur.

GUTIERRE%, !r., J., concu""in>

I concu" insofa" as publication is necessa"% but "ese"ve '% vote as to the necessit% of such publication

bein in the 2fficial =aette.

E LA )UENTE, J., concu""in>

I concu" insofa" as the opinion decla"es the unpublished dec"ees and issuances of a public natu"e o"

ene"al applicabilit% ineffective, until due publication the"eof.

Sp*r* Opi+io+

)ERNANO, C.J., concu""in 7$ith ualification8>

*he"e is on the $hole acceptance on '% pa"t of the vie$s e&p"essed in the abl% $"itten opinion of #ustice

Escolin. I a' unable, ho$eve", to concu" insofa" as it $ould unualifiedl% i'pose the "eui"e'ent of

publication in the 2fficial =aette fo" unpublished (p"esidential issuances( to have bindin fo"ce and

effect.

I shall e&plain $h%.

1. It is of cou"se t"ue that $ithout the "euisite publication, a due p"ocess uestion $ould a"ise if 'ade toappl% adve"sel% to a pa"t% $ho is not even a$a"e of the e&istence of an% leislative o" e&ecutive act

havin the fo"ce and effect of la$. M% point is that such publication "eui"ed need not be confined to the

2fficial =aette. <"o' the p"a'atic standpoint, the"e is an advantae to be ained. It conduces to

ce"taint%. *hat is too be ad'itted. It does not follo$, ho$eve", that failu"e to do so $ould in all cases and

unde" all ci"cu'stances "esult in a statute, p"esidential dec"ee o" an% othe" e&ecutive act of the sa'e

cateo"% bein be"eft of an% bindin fo"ce and effect. *o so hold $ould, fo" 'e, "aise a constitutional

uestion. 3uch a p"onounce'ent $ould lend itself to the inte"p"etation that such a leislative o"

7/23/2019 cases pfr


p"esidential act is be"eft of the att"ibute of effectivit% unless published in the 2fficial =aette. *he"e is no

such "eui"e'ent in the Constitution as #ustice Plana so aptl% pointed out. It is t"ue that $hat is decided

no$ applies onl% to past (p"esidential issuances(. Nonetheless, this cla"ification is, to '% 'ind, needed to

avoid an% possible 'isconception as to $hat is "eui"ed fo" an% statute o" p"esidential act to be i'p"essed

$ith bindin fo"ce o" effectivit%.

/. It is uite unde"standable then $h% I concu" in the sepa"ate opinion of #ustice Plana. Its fi"st pa"a"aph

sets fo"th $hat to 'e is the constitutional doct"ine applicable to this case. *hus> (*he Philippine

Constitution does not "eui"e the publication of la$s as a p"e"euisite fo" thei" effectivit%, unlie so'e

Constitutions else$he"e. It 'a% be said thouh that the ua"antee of due p"ocess "eui"es notice of la$s to

affected Pa"ties befo"e the% can be bound the"eb%; but such notice is not necessa"il% b% publication in the

2fficial =aette. *he due p"ocess clause is not that p"ecise. 1 I a' lie$ise in a"ee'ent $ith its closin

pa"a"aph> (In fine, I concu" in the 'a6o"it% decision to the e&tent that it "eui"es notice befo"e la$s

beco'e effective, fo" no pe"son should be bound b% a la$ $ithout notice. *his is ele'enta"% fai"ness.

+o$eve", I be to disa"ee insofa" as it holds that such notice shall be b% publication in the 2fficial

=aette. 2

0. It suffices, as $as stated b% #ude 5ea"ned +and, that la$ as the co''and of the ove"n'ent ('ust be

asce"tainable in so'e fo"' if it is to be enfo"ced at all. 3 It $ould indeed be to "educe it to the level of

'e"e futilit%, as pointed out b% #ustice Ca"doo, (if it is unno$n and unno$able. 4 Publication, to

"epeat, is thus essential. )hat I a' not p"epa"ed to subsc"ibe to is the doct"ine that it 'ust be in the

2fficial =aette. *o be su"e once published the"ein the"e is the asce"tainable 'ode of dete"'inin the

e&act date of its effectivit%. 3till fo" 'e that does not dispose of the uestion of $hat is the 6u"al effect of

past p"esidential dec"ees o" e&ecutive acts not so published. <o" p"io" the"eto, it could be that pa"ties

a$a"e of thei" e&istence could have conducted the'selves in acco"dance $ith thei" p"ovisions. If no leal

conseuences could attach due to lac of publication in the 2fficial =aette, then se"ious p"oble's could

a"ise. P"evious t"ansactions based on such (P"esidential Issuances( could be open to uestion. Matte"sdee'ed settled could still be inui"ed into. I a' not p"epa"ed to hold that such an effect is conte'plated

b% ou" decision. )he"e such p"esidential dec"ee o" e&ecutive act is 'ade the basis of a c"i'inal

p"osecution, then, of cou"se, its e& post facto cha"acte" beco'es evident. 5 In civil cases thouh,

"et"oactivit% as such is not conclusive on the due p"ocess aspect. *he"e 'ust still be a sho$in of

a"bit"a"iness. Mo"eove", $he"e the challened p"esidential dec"ee o" e&ecutive act $as issued unde" the

police po$e", the non-i'pai"'ent clause of the Constitution 'a% not al$a%s be successfull% invoed.

*he"e 'ust still be that p"ocess of balancin to dete"'ine $hethe" o" not it could in such a case be tainted

b% infi"'it%. 6 In t"aditional te"'inolo%, the"e could a"ise then a uestion of unconstitutional application.

*hat is as fa" as it oes.

. 5et 'e 'ae the"efo"e that '% ualified concu""ence oes no fu"the" than to affi"' that publication is

essential to the effectivit% of a leislative o" e&ecutive act of a ene"al application. I a' not in a"ee'ent

$ith the vie$ that such publication 'ust be in the 2fficial =aette. *he Civil Code itself in its A"ticle /

e&p"essl% "econies that the "ule as to la$s tain effect afte" fifteen da%s follo$in the co'pletion of

thei" publication in the 2fficial =aette is sub6ect to this e&ception, (unless it is othe"$ise p"ovided.(

Mo"eove", the Civil Code is itself onl% a leislative enact'ent, Republic Act No. 0:. It does not and

7/23/2019 cases pfr


cannot have the 6u"idical fo"ce of a constitutional co''and. A late" leislative o" e&ecutive act $hich has

the fo"ce and effect of la$ can leall% p"ovide fo" a diffe"ent "ule.

. No" can I a"ee $ith the "athe" s$eepin conclusion in the opinion of #ustice Escolin that p"esidential

dec"ees and e&ecutive acts not thus p"eviousl% published in the 2fficial =aette $ould be devoid of an%

leal cha"acte". *hat $ould be, in '% opinion, to o too fa". It 'a% be f"auht, as ea"lie" noted, $ithundesi"able conseuences. I find '%self the"efo"e unable to %ield assent to such a p"onounce'ent.

I a' autho"ied to state that #ustices Maasia", Abad 3antos, Cuevas, and Ala'pa% concu" in this sepa"ate

opinion.

Makasiar, %bad (antos, &uevas and %lampay, $$., concur.

TEE(AN>EE, J., concu""in>

I concu" $ith the 'ain opinion of M". #ustice Escolin and the concu""in opinion of M'e. #ustice

+e""e"a. *he Rule of 5a$ connotes a bod% of no"'s and la$s published and asce"tainable and of eual

application to all si'ila"l% ci"cu'stances and not sub6ect to a"bit"a"% chane but onl% unde" ce"tain set

p"ocedu"es. *he Cou"t has consistentl% st"essed that (it is an ele'enta"% "ule of fai" pla% and 6ustice that a

"easonable oppo"tunit% to be info"'ed 'ust be affo"ded to the people $ho a"e co''anded to obe% befo"e

the% can be punished fo" its violation, 1 citin the settled p"inciple based on due p"ocess enunciated in

ea"lie" cases that (befo"e the public is bound b% its contents, especiall% its penal p"ovisions, a la$,

"eulation o" ci"cula" 'ust fi"st be published and the people officiall% and speciall% info"'ed of said

contents and its penalties.

)ithout official publication in the 2fficial =aette as "eui"ed b% A"ticle / of the Civil Code and the

Revised Ad'inist"ative Code, the"e $ould be no basis no" 6ustification fo" the co"olla"% "ule of A"ticle 0

of the Civil Code 7based on const"uctive notice that the p"ovisions of the la$ a"e asce"tainable f"o' the

public and official "eposito"% $he"e the% a"e dul% published8 that (Ino"ance of the la$ e&cuses no one

f"o' co'pliance the"e$ith.

Respondents@ contention based on a 'is"eadin of A"ticle / of the Civil Code that (onl% la$s $hich a"e

silent as to thei" effectivit% dateG need be published in the 2fficial =aette fo" thei" effectivit%( is

'anifestl% untenable. *he plain te&t and 'eanin of the Civil Code is that (la$s shall tae effect afte"

fifteen da%s follo$in the co'pletion of thei" publication in the 2fficial =aette, unless it is otherwise

provided, * i.e. a diffe"ent effectivit% date is p"ovided b% the la$ itself. *his p"oviso pe"fo"ce "efe"s to ala$ that has been dul% published pu"suant to the basic constitutional "eui"e'ents of due p"ocess. *he

best e&a'ple of this is the Civil Code itself> the sa'e A"ticle / p"ovides othe"$ise that it (shall tae effect

onl%G one %ea" not 1 da%sG afte" such publication. 2 *o sustain "espondents@ 'is"eadin that ('ost la$s

o" dec"ees specif% the date of thei" effectivit% and fo" this "eason, publication in the 2fficial =aette is not

necessa"% fo" thei" effectivit% 3 $ould be to nullif% and "ende" nuato"% the Civil Code@s indispensable and

essential "eui"e'ent of p"io" publication in the 2fficial =aette b% the si'ple e&pedient of p"ovidin fo"

i''ediate effectivit% o" an ea"lie" effectivit% date in the la$ itself before the co'pletion of 1 da%s

7/23/2019 cases pfr


follo$in its publication $hich is the pe"iod ene"all% fi&ed b% the Civil Code fo" its p"ope"

disse'ination.

MELENCIO-(ERRERA, J., concu""in>

I a"ee. *he"e cannot be an% uestion but that even if a dec"ee p"ovides fo" a date of effectivit%, it has to

be published. )hat I $ould lie to state in connection $ith that p"oposition is that $hen a date of

effectivit% is 'entioned in the dec"ee but the dec"ee beco'es effective onl% fifteen 718 da%s afte" its

publication in the 2fficial =aette, it $ill not 'ean that the dec"ee can have "et"oactive effect to the date

of effectivit% 'entioned in the dec"ee itself. *he"e should be no "et"oactivit% if the "et"oactivit% $ill "un

counte" to constitutional "ihts o" shall dest"o% vested "ihts.

PLANA, J., concu""in 7$ith ualification8>

*he Philippine Constitution does not "eui"e the publication of la$s as a p"e"euisite fo" thei" effectivit%,

unlie so'e Constitutions else$he"e. ? It 'a% be said thouh that the ua"antee of due p"ocess "eui"es

notice of la$s to affected pa"ties befo"e the% can be bound the"eb%; but such notice is not necessa"il% b%

publication in the 2fficial =aette. *he due p"ocess clause is not that p"ecise. Neithe" is the publication of

la$s in the Official a!ette "eui"ed b% an% statute as a prere)uisite for their effectivity, if said la$s

al"ead% p"ovide fo" thei" effectivit% date.

A"ticle / of the Civil Code p"ovides that (la$s shall tae effect afte" fifteen da%s follo$in the

co'pletion of thei" publication in the 2fficial =aette, unless it is otherwise provided ( *$o thins 'a%

be said of this p"ovision> <i"stl%, it obviousl% does not appl% to a la$ $ith a built-in p"ovision as to $hen

it $ill tae effect. 3econdl%, it clea"l% "econies that each la$ 'a% p"ovide not onl% a diffe"ent pe"iod fo"

"econin its effectivit% date but also a diffe"ent 'ode of notice. *hus, a la$ 'a% p"esc"ibe that it shall be

published else$he"e than in the 2fficial =aette.

Co''on$ealth Act No. 0:, in '% opinion, does not suppo"t the p"oposition that for their

effectivity, la$s 'ust be published in the 2fficial =aette. *he said la$ is si'pl% (An Act to P"ovide fo"

the ?nifo"' Publication and 4ist"ibution of the 2fficial =aette.( Confo"'abl% the"e$ith, it autho"ies

the publication of the 2fficial =aette, dete"'ines its f"euenc%, p"ovides fo" its sale and dist"ibution, and

defines the autho"it% of the 4i"ecto" of P"intin in "elation the"eto. It also enu'e"ates $hat shall be

published in the 2fficial =aette, a'on the', (i'po"tant leislative acts and "esolutions of a publicnatu"e of the Con"ess of the Philippines( and (all e&ecutive and ad'inist"ative o"de"s and p"ocla'ations,

e&cept such as have no ene"al applicabilit%.( It is note$o"th% that not all leislative acts a"e "eui"ed to

be published in the 2fficial =aette but onl% (i'po"tant( ones (of a public natu"e.( Mo"eove", the said

la$ does not p"ovide that publication in the 2fficial =aette is essential fo" the effectivit% of la$s. *his is

as it should be, fo" all statutes a"e eual and stand on the sa'e footin. A la$, especiall% an ea"lie" one of

ene"al application such as Co''on$ealth Act No. 0:, cannot nullif% o" "est"ict the ope"ation of a

7/23/2019 cases pfr


subseuent statute that has a p"ovision of its o$n as to $hen and ho$ it $ill tae effect. 2nl% a hihe"

la$, $hich is the Constitution, can assu'e that "ole.

In fine, I concu" in the 'a6o"it% decision to the e&tent that it "eui"es notice befo"e la$s beco'e effective,

fo" no pe"son should be bound b% a la$ $ithout notice. *his is ele'enta"% fai"ness. +o$eve", I be to

disa"ee insofa" as it holds that such notice shall be b% publication in the 2fficial =aette.

&uevas and %lampay, $$., concur.

GUTIERRE%, !r., J., concu""in>

I concu" insofa" as publication is necessa"% but "ese"ve '% vote as to the necessit% of such publication

bein in the 2fficial =aette.

E LA )UENTE, J., concu""in>

I concu" insofa" as the opinion decla"es the unpublished dec"ees and issuances of a public natu"e o"

ene"al applicabilit% ineffective, until due publication the"eof.


SUPREME COURTManila

3EC2N4 4IDI3I2N

G.R. No. 161$== M*r 23, 2006

ARIEL C. SANTOS, Petitione",

vs.

PEOPLE O) T(E P(ILIPPINES *+ SANIGAN'A"AN, Respondents.

4 E C I 3 I 2 N

GARCIA, J.:

In this petition fo" "evie$ on ce"tio"a"i, petitione" A"iel C. 3antos assails and sees the "eve"sal of the #ul%

01, /!!0 decision1 of the 3andianba%an 7*hi"d 4ivision8 in C"i'inal Case No. /1!, as "eite"ated in its

#anua"% /:, /!! "esolution,/ den%in petitione"@s 'otion fo" "econside"ation.

*he facts>

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_161877_2006.html#fnt1





7/23/2019 cases pfr


In an Info"'ation0 filed $ith the 3andianba%an, the"eat doceted as C"i'inal Case No. /1! and "affled

to its *hi"d 4ivision, he"ein petitione" A"iel 3antos % Cadiente, then the 5abo" A"bite" of the National

5abo" Relations Co''ission 7N5RC8, Reional A"bit"ation B"anch No. III, 3an <e"nando, Pa'pana,

$as cha"ed $ith violation of 3ection 07e8 of Republic Act 7R.A.8 No. 0!19, as a'ended, othe"$ise

no$n as the Anti-="aft and Co""upt P"actices Act, alleedl% co''itted as follo$s>

*hat on Ma"ch 11, 1990 and #une 1, 1990 "espectivel%, in 3an <e"nando, Pa'pana, K, the above-

na'ed accused, K, bein then the 5abo" A"bite" of the N5RCG, Reional A"bit"ation B"anch No. III, 3an

<e"nando, Pa'pana, $hile in the pe"fo"'ance of his uasi-6udicial functions, tain advantae of his

position and co''ittin the offense in "elation to his office, did then and the"e $illfull%, unla$full%,

c"i'inall% and th"ouh evident bad faith and 'anifest pa"tialit% to$a"ds Ab"aha' Mose, co'plainant in

N5RC-RAB Case No. R20-19:-9 captioned Ab"aha' Mose vs. Plaa +otelFApa"t'ents, cause undue

in6u"% to Con"ado 5. *iu, the o$ne" of the Plaa +otelFApa"t'ents, in the follo$in 'anne"> accused

despite the pendenc% of the 'otion fo" "econside"ation of his 2"de" dated 2ctobe" /1, 199/ di"ectin the

issuance of a $"it of e&ecution and the opposition to the 'otion fo" e&ecution as $ell as the 'otion to

uash $"it of e&ecution, issued fi"st a $"it of e&ecution dated Ma"ch 11, 1990 follo$ed b% an alias $"it of

e&ecution dated #une 1, 1990, $ithout actin on the said 'otions and opposition an%'o"e, and as a

conseuence the"eof, undue in6u"% $as caused to Con"ado 5. *iu $hile ivin un$a""anted benefit and

advantae to Ab"aha' Mose.

C2N*RAR *2 5A). )o"ds in b"acet added.G

A""ained on Ap"il //, 199, petitione", as accused belo$, ente"ed a plea of (Not =uilt%.(

In the ensuin p"e-t"ial confe"ence, petitione" 'ade the follo$in ad'issions of fact dul% e'bodied in the

cou"tLs second p"e-t"ial o"de" dated Ap"il 10, 1999>

1. *hat at the ti'e 'ate"ial to the case as alleed in the info"'ation, accused A"iel 3antos $as the

5abo" A"bite" of the N5RC-B"anch III, 3an <e"nando, Pa'pana;

/. *hat the accused issued an 2"de" dated 2ctobe" /1, 199/, di"ectin the issuance of )"it of

E&ecution aainst Con"ado 5. *iu in N5RC-RAB Case No. R20-19:-9 K.;

0. *hat Con"ado 5. *iu K, add"essed to the accused, a 'otion fo" "econside"ation K of said

2"de" di"ectin the issuance of )"it of E&ecution;

. *hat lie$ise, Con"ado 5. *iu filed an opposition to Ab"aha' Mose@s 'otion fo" issuance of

)"it of E&ecution in the above-entitled case;

. *hat $ithout "esolvin the Motion fo" Reconside"ation K, and despite the pendenc% of the

sa'e accused issued a )"it of E&ecution dated Ma"ch 11, 1990, as $ell as an Alias )"it of

E&ecution dated #une 1, 1990 in said case.







7/23/2019 cases pfr


4u"in t"ial, the p"osecution adduced in evidence the testi'on% of its sole $itness in the pe"son of p"ivate

co'plainant Con"ado 5. *iu, o$ne" of Plaa +otelFApa"t'ents, and the docu'ents he identified and

'a"ed in the cou"se of the p"oceedins.

<o" its pa"t, the defense, follo$in the denial of its 4e'u""e" to Evidence, called to the $itness bo&

petitione" hi'self and one No"'a =. Re%es.

As su''a"ied in the decision unde" "evie$, the pa"tiesL "espective ve"sions of the "elevant incidents

follo$>

<acts as established b% the p"osecution

2n #ul% 1!, 19:1, a 4ecision $as "ende"ed b% 5abo" A"bite" And"es Palu'ba"it of the Minist"% of 5abo"

and E'plo%'ent of Reion 0, A"bit"ation B"anch in R20-AB Case No. 19:-9 entitled Ab"aha' M.

Mose vs. Plaa +otelFApa"t'ents, o$ned b% Con"ado 5. *iu. In said 4ecision, Con"ado 5. *iu $as

o"de"ed to pa% his fo"'e" e'plo%ee, Ab"aha' Mose, bac$aes and othe" benefits f"o' the ti'e he $as

illeall% dis'issed up to the ti'e of his "einstate'ent, $ithout ho$eve" indicatin an% pa"ticula" a'ount.

Pu"suant to the above 5abo" 4ecision, N5RC Co"po"ate Auditin E&a'ine" Ma"ia 5ou"des 5. <lo"es

issued a Repo"t of E&a'ine" "ende"in the co'putation of Ab"aha' MoseLs bac$aes and benefits fo" a

pe"iod of th"ee 708 %ea"s f"o' #ul% 199 Kfo" a total a'ount of P1,0!.!. K.

2n 3epte'be" /, 19:1, the Plaa +otelFApa"t'ents K filed a Me'o"andu' of Appeal $ith the M25E

Reion 0, K seein fo" the "eve"salF"econside"ation of the above stated 5abo" 4ecision. *his appeal

$as, ho$eve", dis'issed pe" K Resolution dated Auust , 19:/. Plaa +otelFApa"t'ents "aised thei"

appeal to the +ono"able 3up"e'e Cou"t $hich $as doceted as =.R. No. 1!.

)hile the appeal $as still pendin befo"e the K Cou"t, anothe" Repo"t of E&a'ine" K $as "ende"ed b%

K E&a'ine" Philip A. Manansala inc"easin the a$a"d f"o' P1,0!.! to P0,0. $hich no$

cove"ed bac$aes and benefits f"o' #ul% 199 to Ma% 19:.

*his sudden inc"ease of 6ud'ent a$a"d p"o'pted Plaa +otelF Apa"t'ents to file an ob6ection to the

Repo"t of E&a'ine" Philip Manansala, citin a'on othe"s> a8 3up"e'e Cou"t "ulins that the 'a&i'u'

bac$aes to be paid should onl% cove" th"ee 708 %ea"s f"o' dis'issal; K.

2n Ma"ch 1, 19:9, the 3up"e'e Cou"t denied the appeal filed b% Plaa +otelFApa"t'ents and $ith

finalit% on Auust 0, 19:9.

2n Ma"ch 10, 199!, the N5RC Reion 0 th"ouh K No"'a =. Re%es, 'ade a "eco'putation of the

6ud'ent a$a"d in favo" of Ab"aha' Mose in acco"dance $ith the 3up"e'e Cou"t "ulin cove"in a

pe"iod of onl% th"ee 708 %ea"s f"o' the date of dis'issal. *his "eco'puted a$a"d a'ounted to P19,9!:.

K.

Afte" the above incidents, theG accused too ove" the above 5abo" Case R20-AB-Case No. 19:-9, K.

2n 2ctobe" /1, 199/, heG Kissued an 2"de" of even date, $hich inc"eased the 6ud'ent a$a"d K




7/23/2019 cases pfr


f"o' P19,9!:. to a s%"ocetin P1:,/. adoptin and citin the"ein as basis a Repo"t of <iscal

E&a'ine" dated 3epte'be" /, 1991, $hich $as not even fu"nished to Plaa +otelFRestau"ants, Con"ado

5. *iu o" his counsel. *his co'putation $as cont"a"% to the p"evailin 6u"isp"udence in 5epanto

Consolidated Minin Co. vs. Enca"nacion, $he"e the 'oneta"% a$a"ds fo" illeall% dis'issed e'plo%ees

should onl% cove" a th"ee 708 %ea"-pe"iod f"o' the ti'e of dis'issal. *he 2ctobe" /1, 199/ 2"de" of theG

accused included the o"de" fo" the issuance of )"it of E&ecution.

Plaa +otelFApa"t'ents filed a Motion fo" Reconside"ation dated Nove'be" , 199/ seein the

"econside"ation of the above 2"de" of accused K. Cited as "ounds fo" "econside"ation, inte" alia, a"e> a8

the o"de" assailed K isG cont"a"% to the p"evailin 6u"isp"udence laid K in 5epanto Consolidated Minin

K; b8 Con"ado 5. *iu K cannot possibl% "einstate Ab"aha' Mose to his fo"'e" position as $aite" in the

Plaa +otel because it has al"ead% closed business as ea"l% as #anua"% /1, 19: K.

4u"in the pendenc% of the Plaa +otelLs Motion fo" Reconside"ation, Ab"aha' Mose th"ouh counsel

filed an E&-Pa"te Motion fo" E&ecution of the 2"de" dated 2ctobe" /1, 199/. *his $as opposed b% Plaa

+otelFApa"t'ents K.

)ithout ho$eve" actin on the Plaa +otelFApa"t'entsL Motion fo" Reconside"ation dated Nove'be" ,

199/ and the 2pposition to Motion fo" E&ecution dated <eb"ua"% , 1990, theG accused issued a )"it of

E&ecution dated Ma"ch 11, 1990 to i'ple'ent his 2"de" of 2ctobe" /1, 199/ to collect the a'ount

of P1:,/. K. Reactin to this action of theG accused K, Plaa +otelFApa"t'ents filed on Ma% /,

1990 a Motion to Juash )"it of E&ecution and to Resolve Motion fo" Reconside"ation. *heG accused

ho$eve" ino"ed all the abovesaid Motions and pleadins filed b% Plaa +otelFApa"t'ents.

Con"ado 5. *iu, K $as then co'pelled to file a Petition fo" In6unction befo"e the 4epa"t'ent of 5abo"

and E'plo%'ent $ith a p"a%e" fo" aG *e'po"a"% Rest"ainin 2"de" *R2G.

*he N5RC in its Resolution of #une 9, 1990 issued the K 7*R28 en6oinin the accused f"o' enfo"cin

his )"it of E&ecution dated Ma"ch 11, 1990. In o"de" to i'ple'ent the *R2, the N5RC i'posed as a

condition the postin b% Con"ado 5. *iu of a cash o" su"et% bond euivalent to the 6ud'ent a$a"d

of P1:,/. $hich *iu co'pliedG as sho$n b% his pa%'ent of p"e'iu' a'ountin to P11,::.!.

4espite the *R2G, theG accused issued an (Alias )"it of E&ecution( dated #une 1, 1990 "eite"atin the

enfo"ce'ent of his p"evious )"it of E&ecution. +o$eve", this $as not enfo"ced due to the *R2G

p"esented b% Con"ado 5. *iu to the N5RC 3he"iffs K.

2n <eb"ua"% :, 199, the N5RC, K issued a decision K to li'it the co'putation of 6ud'ent a$a"d in

favo" of Ab"aha' Mose to onl% th"ee 708 %ea"s f"o' #ul% , 199 to #ul% , 19:/ $ithout ualification o"deduction acco"din to the p"evailin 6u"isp"udence laid do$n b% the 3up"e'e Cou"t. 7)o"ds in b"acet

added8.

<acts as established b% the defense

Accused A"iel 3antos ad'itted that he had issued a )"it of E&ecution on the 4ecision dated #ul% 1!, 19:1

of the 5abo" A"bite" And"es Palu'ba"it K. *he a$a"d, ho$eve", $as inc"eased f"o' P19,9!:.



7/23/2019 cases pfr


to P1:,/. K. *he said $"it of e&ecution $as issued on Ma"ch 11, 1990. A Motion fo"

Reconside"ation dated <eb"ua"% , 1990 $as subseuentl% filed b% the Plaa +otelFApa"t'ents on the

2"de" dated 2ctobe" /1, 199/, but theG accused dee'ed not to "esolve the sa'e because he felt the"e is

no necessit% to "esolve it, since the decision of 5abo" A"bite" Palu'ba"it has beco'e final and e&ecuto"%,

hence, 'iniste"ial fo" his pa"t to i'ple'ent and enfo"ce the sa'e.

2n <eb"ua"% /:, 199, a 4ecision of the N5RC $as issued K statin that the bac$aes should be

li'ited onl% to th"ee 708 %ea"s in consonance $ith the "ulin in the 5epanto Minin Co'pan% case. +e

fu"the" testified that, he did not no$ an%'o"e no" a$a"e $hat happened to the case since, as of Auust,

1990, he $as assined at the N5RCNCR, and 'uch as he $anted to "ectif% the e""o", he can no lone"

do so K.

P"io" to the issuance of the abovesaid decision, a *R2G$as issued b% the 425EN5RC fo" the

en6oin'ent of the i'ple'entation of the $"it of e&ecution dated Ma"ch 11, 1990, ho$eve", theG accused

issued an alias $"it of e&ecution. *he 3he"iff assined did not i'ple'ent the said $"its.

No"'a Re%es initiall% 'ade a co'putation fo" the bac $aes of Ab"aha' Mose in the

a'ount P19,9!:. K. +o$eve", she 'ade a "eco'putation K based on the 2"de" of the accusedG K

dated 2ctobe" /1, 199/ and inc"eased the P19,9!:. bac $aes to P1:,/. K. 3he $as not

info"'ed b% theG accused that it is ph%sicall% i'possible fo" Mose to be "einstated K.: 7)o"ds in b"acet

added8

In the sa'e decision, the 3andianba%an 7*hi"d 4ivision8 ad6uded petitione" uilt% as cha"ed and,

acco"dinl%, sentenced hi', thus>

)+ERE<2RE, the Cou"t finds accused ARIE5 3AN*23 % CA4IEN*E =?I5* be%ond "easonable

doubt of violation of 3ection 0 7e8 of Republic Act No. 0!19, othe"$ise no$n as (*he Anti-="aft andCo""upt P"actices Act(, and sentences said accused to EI=+* 7:8 EAR3 and 2NE 718 4A, as

'ini'u', to *EN 71!8 EAR3, as 'a&i'u', and pe"petual disualification f"o' holdin public office.

A"iel 3antos is also o"de"ed to pa% Plaa +otelFApa"t'ents, th"ouh Con"ado 5. *iu, the follo$in su's

as his civil liabilit%>

1. P:,!!! fo" the atto"ne%@s fees paid b% Con"ado 5. *iu because of filin of this case; and

/. P11,:!! fo" the supe"sedeas bond paid b% Con"ado 5. *iu in connection $ith the "est"ainin

o"de" issued b% the 425E-N5RC.

32 2R4ERE4.9

+is 'otion fo" "econside"ation havin been denied b% the sa'e cou"t in its euall% assailed Resolution of

#anua"% /:, /!!,1! petitione" is no$ $ith this Cou"t via the p"esent "ecou"se i'putin on the "espondent

cou"t the follo$in e""o"s>









7/23/2019 cases pfr


I. IN +254IN= *+A* PE*I*I2NER )A3 =?I5* 2< MANI<E3* PAR*IA5I* IN I33?IN= *+E

)RI*3 2< EEC?*I2N 3?B#EC* 2< *+E IN<2RMA*I2N.

ll. IN +254IN= *+A* *+E PRIDA*E C2MP5AINAN* 3?<<ERE4 ?N4?E IN#?R 3INCE, A3

3+2)N AB2DE, *+E #?4=MEN* <2R )+IC+ +E )A3 +E54 5IAB5E *2 PA BACO)A=E3,

)+E*+ER <2R *+A* 5IMI*E4 PERI24 2< *+REE 708 EAR3 2R C2N*IN?IN=BACO)A=E3 ?N*I5 AC*?A5 REIN3*A*EMEN* +A3 NEDER BEEN 3A*I3<IE4.

*he petition is not i'p"essed $ith 'e"it.

3ection 07e8 of R.A. No. 0!19, as a'ended, unde" $hich petitione" $as indicted and convicted, "eads>

3EC. 0. Co""upt p"actices of public office"s. - In addition to acts o" o'issions of public office"s al"ead%

penalied b% e&istin la$, the follo$in shall constitute co""upt p"actices of an% public office" and a"e

he"eb% decla"ed to be unla$ful>

&&& &&& &&&

7e8 Causin an% undue in6u"% to an% pa"t%, includin the =ove"n'ent, o" ivin an% p"ivate pa"t% an%

un$a""anted benefits, advantae o" p"efe"ence in the discha"e of his official, ad'inist"ative o" 6udicial

functions th"ouh 'anifest pa"tialit%, evident bad faith o" "oss ine&cusable nelience. *his p"ovision

shall appl% to office"s and e'plo%ees of offices o" ove"n'ent co"po"ations cha"ed $ith the "ant of

licenses o" pe"'its o" othe" concessions.

In #acinto vs. 3andianba%an,11 the Cou"t en banc enu'e"ated the essential ele'ents of the c"i'e

punishable unde" the afo"euoted statuto"% p"ovision, to $it>

1. *he accused 'ust be a public office" discha"in ad'inist"ative, 6udicial o" official functions;

/. +e 'ust have acted $ith 'anifest pa"tialit%, evident bad faith o" ine&cusable nelience; and

0. *hat his action caused an% undue in6u"% to an% pa"t%, includin the ove"n'ent, o" ivin an%

p"ivate pa"t% un$a""anted benefits, advantae o" p"efe"ence in the discha"e of his functions.

As 'a% be noted, $hat conte&tuall% is punishable is the act of causin an% undue in6u"% to an% pa"t%, o"

the ivin to an% p"ivate pa"t% of un$a""anted benefits, advantae o" p"efe"ence in the discha"e of the

public office"Ls functions. In ?% vs. 3andianba%an,1/ and aain in 3antiao vs. =a"chito"ena,10 the Cou"t

has 'ade it abundantl% clea" that the use of the dis6unctive $o"d (o"( connotes that eithe" act of 7a8(causin an% undue in6u"% to an% pa"t%, includin the =ove"n'ent(; and 7b8 (ivin an% p"ivate pa"t% an%

un$a""anted benefits, advantae o" p"efe"ence,( ualifies as a violation of 3ection 07e8 of R.A. No. 0!19,

as a'ended. *his is not to sa%, ho$eve", that each 'ode constitutes a distinct offense but that an accused

'a% be p"oceeded aainst unde" eithe" o" both 'odes.

Anent the fi"st e""o", petitione" sub'its that the 3andianba%an ove"looed the fact that, $hen he issued,

on #une 1, 1990, the Alias )"it of E&ecution, "eite"atin the enfo"ce'ent of the p"evious )"it of









7/23/2019 cases pfr


E&ecution dated Ma"ch 11, 1990, he had no no$lede of the issuance on #une 9, 1990 b% the N5RC of a

te'po"a"% "est"ainin o"de" 7*R28. P"escindin the"ef"o', petitione" $ould no$ insist that, havin been

app"ised of the *R2 onl% on #une /9, 1990, the da% the N5RC@s Cent"al 4ocet 3ection "eleased the

sa'e, he could not be c"i'inall% liable fo" actin $ith 'anifest pa"tialit% in issuin the alias $"it of

e&ecution on #une 1, 1990.

*he Cou"t is not pe"suaded.

Petitione"Ls postu"e of not havin no$n at so'e 'ate"ial point in ti'e the issuance of the *R2 in

uestion st"ies the Cou"t as 'e"e afte"thouht. If it $e"e "eall% t"ue that he had no no$lede of the *R2

issuance befo"e he issued the #une 1, 1990 alias $"it of e&ecution, he should have at least stated so in his

defense befo"e the cou"t belo$ o" 'a"ed, as evidence, the *R2 evidencin that it $as "eleased f"o' the

N5RC@s docet section onl% on #une /9, 1990. *he 'ate"ialit% and sinificant $eiht of this defense

could not have eluded petitione", hi'self a la$%e", and his counsel, if indeed he had no no$lede that a

*R2 had al"ead% been issued. Not lost on the Cou"t is the fact that petitione" did not even "aise said issue

in his 4e'u""e" to Evidence befo"e the "espondent cou"t, as $ell as in his 'otion fo" "econside"ation of

its decision. *he settled "ule is that no uestion $ill be ente"tained on appeal unless it had been "aised in

the cou"t belo$. Points of la$, theo"ies, issues and a"u'ents not adeuatel% b"ouht to the attention of

the lo$e" cou"t need not be, and o"dina"il% $ill not be, conside"ed b% a "evie$in cou"t as the% cannot be

"aised fo" the fi"st ti'e on appeal. 3p"inin su"p"ises on the opposin pa"t% is offensive to the spo"tin

idea of fai" pla%, 6ustice and due p"ocess; hence the p"osc"iption aainst "aisin a ne$ issue fo" the fi"st

ti'e on appeal.1

In an% case, the Cou"t a"ees $ith the findins and disuisitions of the 3andianba%an that petitione"

e&hibited 'anifest pa"tialit% to$a"ds Ab"aha' Mose in issuin the t$o )"its of E&ecution>

As a 5abo" A"bite", and a la$%e" at that, it is incu'bent upon hi' to e&e"cise p"udence and p"obit% in thee&e"cise of his functions. +e ne$ that the"e $as a pendin Motion fo" Reconside"ation filed b% Plaa

+otelFApa"t'ents contestin his o"de" dated 2ctobe" /1, 199/ o"de"in, in haste, the issuance of the $"it

of e&ecution and "ea"din the hulin inc"ease of the a'ount of bac$aes to be paid to Ab"aha' Mose

f"o' P19,9!:. toP1:,/., and despite the pendenc% of the said Motion, he issued the

co""espondin $"it of e&ecution. +is "eason that the"e is no lone" a necessit% to "esolve the 'otion fo"

"econside"ation because the 4ecision of 5abo" A"bite" Palu'ba"it has beco'e final and e&ecuto"% is

untenable and a ve"% neliible state'ent. *he issue "aised in the 'otion fo" "econside"ation is not the

4ecision of 5abo" A"bite" Palu'ba"it, but accused@s 2"de" dated 2ctobe" /1, 199/, and thus, incu'bent

upon hi' to "esolve fi"st the pendin 'otion fo" "econside"ation befo"e pu"suin $ith the i'ple'entation

of the said 2"de" and instead of issuin the $"it of e&ecution. <u"the"'o"e, accused aain issued an alias

$"it of e&ecution, this ti'e, despite issuance of a te'po"a"% "est"ainin o"de" b% the 425E-N5RC. B%these acts of accused A"iel 3antos, it is clea"l% evident that he had e&e"cised 'anifest pa"tialit% o" bias on

Ab"aha' Mose in i'petuousl% issuin the t$o $"its of e&ecution, thus, causin da'ae and in6u"%, $hich

a"e not 'e"el% neliible to Plaa +otelFApa"t'ents.1

Petitione" also 'aintains that Plaa +otel did not suffe" da'ae o" in6u"% conseuent to his havin issued

the t$o $"its of e&ecution, a"uin that neithe" $as eve" enfo"ced. P"essin the point, he also states that






7/23/2019 cases pfr


$hat Plaa +otel paid b% $a% of atto"ne%@s fees and p"e'iu' fo" the supe"sedeas bond it posted to en6oin

the enfo"ce'ent of the alias $"it of e&ecution is not the da'ae o" in6u"% conte'plated unde" 3ection 07e8

of R.A. No. 0!19.

*he contention is untenable.

*he te"' (undue in6u"%( in the conte&t of 3ection 0 7e8 of the Anti-="aft and Co""upt P"actices Act

punishin the act of (causin undue in6u"% to an% pa"t%,( has a 'eanin ain to that civil la$ concept of

(actual da'ae.( *he Cou"t said so in 5lo"ente vs. 3andianba%an,1 thus>

In 6u"isp"udence, (undue in6u"%( is consistentl% inte"p"eted as (actual da'ae.( ?ndue has been defined

as ('o"e than necessa"%, not p"ope", o"G illeal;( and in6u"% as (an% $"on o" da'ae done to anothe",

eithe" in his pe"son, "ihts, "eputation o" p"ope"t% ; that is, theG invasion of an% leall% p"otected inte"est

of anothe".( Actual da'ae, in the conte&t of these definitions, is ain to that in civil la$.

In tu"n, actual o" co'pensato"% da'aes is defined b% A"ticle /199 of the Civil Code as follo$s>

(A"t. /199. E&cept as p"ovided b% la$ o" b% stipulation, one is entitled to an adeuate co'pensation onl%

fo" such pecunia"% loss suffe"ed b% hi' as he has dul% p"oved. 3uch co'pensation is "efe""ed to as actual

o" co'pensato"% da'aes.(

<unda'ental in the la$ on da'aes is that one in6u"ed b% a b"each of a cont"act, o" b% a $"onful o"

nelient act o" o'ission shall have a fai" and 6ust co'pensation co''ensu"ate to the loss sustained as a

conseuence of the defendantLs act. Actual pecunia"% co'pensation is a$a"ded as a ene"al "ule, K.

Actual da'aes a"e p"i'a"il% intended to si'pl% 'ae ood o" "eplace the loss caused b% the $"on.

Petitione" ad'itted issuin the t$o $"its of e&ecution $ithout fi"st "esolvin Plaa +otel@s 'otion fo"

"econside"ation of his 2ctobe" /1, 199/ 2"de". +e a"ued, ho$eve", that it $as his 'iniste"ial dut% to

issue the $"its afo"e'entioned, the finalit% of the decision souht to be enfo"ced, i.e., the decision of

5abo" A"bite" Palu'ba"it, havin set in upon the dis'issal, $ith finalit%, b% this Cou"t of Plaa +otelLs

petition fo" ce"tio"a"i in =.R. No. 1! assailin said decision.

Petitione" is obviousl% t"%in to 'islead. As 'a% be "ecalled, petitione" too ove" 5abo" Case R20-AB

Case No. 19:-9 afte" this Cou"t, in =.R. No. 1!, dis'issed $ith finalit% Plaa +otelFApa"t'entsL

appeal f"o' the decision of 5abo" A"bite" And"es Palu'ba"it $hich, to st"ess, dec"eed pa%'ent to Mose

of bac$aes f"o' the date of his illeal dis'issal to his "einstate'ent, $ithout, ho$eve", indicatin a

specific a'ount. In the span bet$een the issuance of the Palu'ba"it decision and this Cou"tLs final

dis'issal action afo"e'entioned, t$o N5RC auditin e&a'ine"s ca'e out $ith 7/8 diffe"ent co'putationsof the 6ud'ent a$a"d. *he"eafte", but befo"e accused issued, on 2ctobe" /1, 199/, an o"de" fi&in the

6ud'ent a$a"d at P1:,/. and di"ectin the issuance of the cove"in $"it of e&ecution, e&a'ine"

No"'a Re%es, follo$in 6u"isp"udence, 'ade a "eco'putation and ca'e up $ith the fiu"e P19,9!:. to

cove" the th"eshold th"ee %ea"s bac$aes.

*he inc"ease of the a$a"d fo" Mose f"o' P19,9!:. to P1:,/. appea"ed cont"a"% to p"evailin

6u"isp"udence that such a$a"d should cove" onl% a 0-%ea" pe"iod f"o' the ti'e of the e'plo%ee@s



7/23/2019 cases pfr


dis'issal.1 *he pe"ceived illealit% of the said 2"de" of 2ctobe" /1, 199/ is $hat i'pelled Plaa +otel to

'ove fo" a "econside"ation, "aisin inte" alia the follo$in issues fo" petitione" to conside" in assessin

the fo"'e"@s liabilit%> 7a8 the "ulin in 5epanto Consolidated Minin vs. Enca"nacion1: on the a'ount

"ecove"able in illeal dis'issal cases is still the p"evailin doct"ine; 7b8 as ea"l% as #ul% 199!, the

e'plo%e" al"ead% e&p"essed $illinness to pa% Mose the su' of P19,9!:.; and 7c8 Plaa +otel $as not

fu"nished of the ne$ co'putation assessin it the a'ount of P1:,/..

<"o' the fo"eoin na""ation of events, it is fai"l% clea" that Plaa +otelLs 'otion fo" "econside"ation

i''ediatel% "efe""ed to above $as di"ected aainst petitione"Ls o"de" of 2ctobe" /1, 199/ di"ectin the

issuance of a $"it of e&ecution fo" the a'ount stated the"ein. Be this as it 'a%, petitione"Ls pose

"espectin his 'iniste"ial dut% to o"de" the e&ecution of a final and e&ecuto"% decision of And"es

Palu'ba"it is as si'plistic as it is 'isleadin.

As it $e"e, petitione" failed to "esolve said 'otion fo" "econside"ation and instead issued on Ma"ch 11,

1990 a $"it of e&ecution. )o"se still, he p"oceeded to issue an alias $"it of e&ecution despite the issuance

b% the N5RC P"ope" of a *R2 en6oinin the i'ple'entation of the unde"l%in $"it. ?nde" the

ci"cu'stances, Plaa +otel $as $ithin its "iht to secu"e the se"vices of counsel - fo" a fee of P:,!!.!!

- and, to appl% fo" in6unctive "elief and then pa% P11,:!!.!! fo" the supe"sedeas bond to sta% the

i'ple'entation of the $"it of e&ecution in uestion. In net effect, Plaa +otel incu""ed da'aes "ende"ed

necessa"% b% the illeal o" i'p"ope" acts of petitione".

All told, the Cou"t "ules and so holds, as did the "espondent 3andianba%an, that the ele'ents of the

offense cha"ed had been dul% established be%ond "easonable doubt. Petitione", bein a labo" a"bite" of

the N5RC, discha"es uasi-6udicial functions. +is act of issuin the t$o $"its of e&ecution $ithout fi"st

"esolvin the pendin 'otion fo" "econside"ation of his 2ctobe" /1, 199/ 2"de", and despite the e&istence

of a *R2 $as clea"l% tainted $ith o" attended b% evident pa"tialit% causin undue in6u"% to p"ivate

co'plainant Con"ado 5. *iu.

*he penalt% fo" violation of 3ection 07e8 of R.A. No. 0!19 is i'p"ison'ent fo" not less than si& %ea"s and

one 'onth no" 'o"e than fifteen %ea"s, pe"petual disualification f"o' public office, and othe" accesso"%

penalties. ?nde" the Indete"'inate 3entence 5a$, if the offense is punished b% special la$, as he"e, the

cou"t shall i'pose on the accused an indete"'inate penalt% the 'a&i'u' te"' of $hich shall not e&ceed

the 'a&i'u' fi&ed b% said la$ and the 'ini'u' shall not be less than the 'ini'u' p"esc"ibed b% the

sa'e. +ence, the "espondent cou"t co""ectl% i'posed on petitione" an indete"'inate p"ison te"' of eiht

7:8 %ea"s and one 718 da%, as 'ini'u', to ten 71!8 %ea"s, as 'a&i'u', $ith pe"petual disualification

f"o' public office.

)+ERE<2RE, findin no "eve"sible e""o" on the decision unde" "evie$, the sa'e is he"eb% A<<IRME4in toto and this petition is 4ENIE4 fo" lac of 'e"it.

Costs aainst petitione".

32 2R4ERE4.





7/23/2019 cases pfr


Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Bauio Cit%

<IR3* 4IDI3I2N

G.R. No. 13=$=3 April 20, 2001

. M. CONSUN!I, INC., petitione",

vs.COURT O) APPEALS *+ MARIA !. !UEGO, "espondents.

>APUNAN, J .#

At a"ound 1>0! p.'., Nove'be" /, 199!, #ose #ueo, a const"uction $o"e" of 4. M. Consun6i, Inc., fell

1 floo"s f"o' the Renaissance *o$e", Pasi Cit% to his death.

P20 Roelio Dillanueva of the Easte"n Police 4ist"ict investiated the t"aed% and filed a "epo"t dated Nove'be" /, 199!, statin that>

& & &. *heG vGicti' $as "ushed to theG Rial Medical Cente" in Pasi, Met"o Manila $he"e he

$as p"onounced dead on a""ival 742A8 b% the attendin ph%sician, 4". E""ol de o,G at a"ound

/>1 p.'. of the sa'e date.

Investiation disclosed that at the iven ti'e, date and place, $hile victi' #ose A. #ueo toethe"$ith #essie #alua and 4elso 4esta6o $e"eG pe"fo"'in thei" $o" as ca"pente"sG at the elevato"

co"e of the 1th floo" of the *o$e" 4, Renaissance *o$e" Buildin on boa"d a pGlatfo"' 'ade of

channel bea' 7steel8 'easu"in .: 'ete"s b% / 'ete"s $ide $ith pinulid pl%$ood floo"in and

cable $i"es attached to its fou" co"ne"s and hooed at the ton chain bloc, $hen suddenl%, the

bolt o" pin $hich $as 'e"el% inse"ted to connect the chain bloc $ith the pGlatfo"', ot loose&&& causin the $hole pGlatfo"' asse'bl% and the victi' to fall do$n to the base'ent of the

elevato" co"e, *o$e" 4 of the buildin unde" const"uction the"eb% c"ushin the victi' of death,

save his t$o 7/8 co'panions $ho lucil% 6u'ped out fo" safet%.

It is thus 'anifest that #ose A. #ueo $as c"ushed to death $hen the pGlatfo"' he $as then on

boa"d and pe"fo"'in $o", fell. And the fallin of the pGlatfo"' $as due to the "e'oval o"

ettin loose of the pin $hich $as 'e"el% inse"ted to the connectin points of the chain bloc and

pGlatfo"' but $ithout a safet% loc.1

2n Ma% 9, 1991, #ose #ueoLs $ido$, Ma"ia, filed in the Reional *"ial Cou"t 7R*C8 of Pasi a co'plaint

fo" da'aes aainst the deceasedLs e'plo%e", 4.M. Consun6i, Inc. *he e'plo%e" "aised, a'on othe"

defenses, the $ido$Ls p"io" avail'ent of the benefits f"o' the 3tate Insu"ance <und.

Afte" t"ial, the R*C "ende"ed a decision in favo" of the $ido$ Ma"ia #ueo. *he dispositive po"tion of theR*C decision "eads>

)+ERE<2RE, 6ud'ent is he"eb% "ende"ed o"de"in defendant to pa% plaintiff, as follo$s>

1. P!,!!!.!! fo" the death of #ose A. #ueo.

7/23/2019 cases pfr


/. P1!,!!!.!! as actual and co'pensato"% da'aes.

0. P,!!!.!! fo" the loss of #ose A. #ueoLs ea"nin capacit%.

. P1!!,!!!.!! as 'o"al da'aes.

. P/!,!!!.!! as atto"ne%Ls fees, plus the costs of suit.

32 2R4ERE4./

2n appeal b% 4. M. Consun6i, the Cou"t of Appeals 7CA8 affi"'ed the decision of the R*C in toto.

4. M. Consun6i no$ sees the "eve"sal of the CA decision on the follo$in "ounds>

• *+E APPE55A*E C2?R* ERRE4 IN +254IN= *+A* *+E P25ICE REP2R* )A3

A4MI33IB5E EDI4ENCE 2< *+E A55E=E4 NE=5I=ENCE 2< PE*I*I2NER.

• *+E APPE55A*E C2?R* ERRE4 IN +254IN= *+A* *+E 42C*RINE 2< R"( +P(% LO-+OR sicG I3 APP5ICAB5E *2 PR2DE NE=5I=ENCE 2N *+E PAR*

2< PE*I*I2NER.

• *+E APPE55A*E C2?R* ERRE4 IN +254IN= *+A* PE*I*I2NER I3

PRE3?ME4 NE=5I=EN* ?N4ER AR*IC5E /1:! 2< *+E CIDI5 C24E, AN4

• *+E APPE55A*E C2?R* ERRE4 IN +254IN= *+A* RE3P2N4EN* I3 N2*

PREC5?4E4 <R2M REC2DERIN= 4AMA=E3 ?N4ER *+E CIDI5 C24E.0

Petitione" 'aintains that the police "epo"t "ep"oduced above is hea"sa% and, the"efo"e, inad'issible. *he

CA "uled othe"$ise. It held that said "epo"t, bein an ent"% in official "eco"ds, is an e&ception to the

hea"sa% "ule.

*he Rules of Cou"t p"ovide that a $itness can testif% onl% to those facts $hich he no$s of his pe"sonal

no$lede, that is, $hich a"e de"ived f"o' his pe"ception. A $itness, the"efo"e, 'a% not testif% as $hat

he 'e"el% lea"ned f"o' othe"s eithe" because he $as told o" "ead o" hea"d the sa'e. 3uch testi'on% is

conside"ed hea"sa% and 'a% not be "eceived as p"oof of the t"uth of $hat he has lea"ned. *his is no$n

as the hea"sa% "ule.

+ea"sa% is not li'ited to o"al testi'on% o" state'ents; the ene"al "ule that e&cludes hea"sa% as evidence

applies to $"itten, as $ell as o"al state'ents.

*he theo"% of the hea"sa% "ule is that the 'an% possible deficiencies, supp"essions, sou"ces of e""o" andunt"ust$o"thiness, $hich lie unde"neath the ba"e untested asse"tion of a $itness, 'a% be best b"ouht to

liht and e&posed b% the test of c"oss-e&a'iantion. *he hea"sa% "ule, the"efo"e, e&cludes evidence that

cannot be tested b% c"oss-e&a'ination.:

*he Rules of Cou"t allo$ seve"al e&ceptions to the "ule,9 a'on $hich a"e ent"ies in official "eco"ds.

3ection , Rule 10! p"ovides>

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_137873_2001.html#fnt2







7/23/2019 cases pfr


Ent"ies in official "eco"ds 'ade in the pe"fo"'ance of his dut% 'ade in the pe"fo"'ance of his

dut% b% a public office" of the Philippines, o" b% a pe"son in the pe"fo"'ance of a dut% speciall%

en6oined b% la$ a"e prima facie evidence of the facts the"ein stated.

In %frica, et al. vs. &altex /Phil.0, +nc., et al.,1! this Cou"t, citin the $o" of Chief #ustice Mo"an,

enu'e"ated the "euisites fo" ad'issibilit% unde" the above "ule>

7a8 that the ent"% $as 'ade b% a public office" o" b% anothe" pe"son speciall% en6oined b% la$ to

do so;

7b8 that it $as 'ade b% the public office" in the pe"fo"'ance of his duties, o" b% such othe" pe"son

in the pe"fo"'ance of a dut% speciall% en6oined b% la$; and

7c8 that the public office" o" othe" pe"son had sufficient no$lede of the facts b% hi' stated,

$hich 'ust have been acui"ed b% hi' pe"sonall% o" th"ouh official info"'ation.

*he CA held that the police "epo"t 'eets all these "euisites. Petitione" contends that the last "euisite is

not p"esent.

*he Cou"t notes that P20 Dillanueva, $ho sined the "epo"t in uestion, also testified befo"e the t"ial

cou"t. In Rodrigue! vs. &ourt of %ppeals,11 $hich involved a <i"e Investiation Repo"t, the office" $ho

sined the fi"e "epo"t also testified befo"e the t"ial cou"t. *his Cou"t held that the "epo"t $as inad'issible

fo" the pu"pose of p"ovin the t"uth of the state'ents contained in the "epo"t but ad'issible insofa" as it

constitutes pa"t of the testi'on% of the office" $ho e&ecuted the "epo"t.

& & &. 3ince Ma6o" En"iue hi'self too the $itness stand and $as available fo" c"oss-

e&a'ination, the po"tions of the "epo"t $hich $e"e of his pe"sonal no$lede o" $hich consisted

of his pe"ceptions and conclusions $e"e not hea"sa%. *he "est of the "epo"t, such as the su''a"%

of the state'ents of the pa"ties based on thei" s$o"n state'ents 7$hich $e"e anne&ed to the

Repo"t8 as $ell as the latte", havin been included in the fi"st pu"pose of the offe" as pa"t of thetesti'on% of Ma6o" En"iueG, 'a% then be conside"ed as independently relevant

statements $hich $e"e athe"ed in the cou"se of the investiation and 'a% thus be ad'itted as

such, but not necessa"il% to p"ove the t"uth the"eof. It has been said that>

()he"e "ea"dless of the t"uth o" falsit% of a state'ent, the fact that it has been 'ade is

"elevant, the hea"sa% "ule does not appl%, but the state'ent 'a% be sho$n. Evidence as to

the 'ain of such state'ent is not seconda"% but p"i'a"%, fo" the state'ent itself 'a%

constitute a fact in issue, o" be ci"cu'stantiall% "elevant as to the e&istence of such a

fact.(

)hen Ma6o" En"iue too the $itness stand, testified fo" petitione"s on his Repo"t and 'ade

hi'self available fo" c"oss-e&a'ination b% the adve"se pa"t%, the Repo"t, insofa" as it p"oved thatce"tain utte"ances $e"e 'ade 7but not thei" t"uth8, $as effectivel% "e'oved f"o' the a'bit of the

afo"e'entioned 3ection of Rule 10!. P"ope"l% unde"stood, this section does a$a% $ith the

testi'on% in open cou"t of the office" $ho 'ade the official "eco"d, conside"s the 'atte" as an

e&ception to the hea"sa% "ule and 'aes the ent"ies in said official "eco"d ad'issible in evidence

as prima facie evidence of the facts the"ein stated. *he unde"l%in "easons fo" this e&ceptiona"%

"ule a"e necessit% and t"ust$o"thiness, as e&plained in %ntillon v. #arcelon.





7/23/2019 cases pfr


*he litiation is unli'ited in $hich testi'on% b% officials is dail% needed; the occasions

in $hich the officials $ould be su''oned f"o' his o"dina"% duties to decla"e as a

$itness a"e nu'be"less. *he public office"s a"e fe$ in $hose dail% $o" so'ethin is not

done in $hich testi'on% is not needed f"o' official sou"ces. )e"e the"e no e&ception fo"

official state'ents, hosts of officials $ould be found devotin the "eate" pa"t of thei"ti'e to attendin as $itnesses in cou"t o" delive"in deposition befo"e an office". *he

$o" of ad'inist"ation of ove"n'ent and the inte"est of the public havin business $ithofficials $ould alie suffe" in conseuence. <o" these "easons, and fo" 'an% othe"s, a

ce"tain ve"it% is acco"ded such docu'ents, $hich is not e&tended to p"ivate docu'ents. 70

)i'o"e on Evidence, 3ec. 1018.

*he la$ "eposes a pa"ticula" confidence in public office"s that it p"esu'es the% $ill

discha"e thei" seve"al t"usts $ith accu"ac% and fidelit%; and, the"efo"e, $hateve" acts

the% do in discha"e of thei" dut% 'a% be iven in evidence and shall be taen to be t"ue

unde" such a de"ee of caution as to the natu"e and ci"cu'stances of each case 'a%

appea" to "eui"e.

It $ould have been an enti"el% diffe"ent 'atte" if Ma6o" En"iue $as not p"esented to testif% on

his "epo"t. In that case the applicabilit% of 3ection of Rule 10 $ould have been "ipe fo"dete"'ination, and this Cou"t $ould have a"eed $ith the Cou"t of Appeals that said "epo"t $as

inad'issible since the afo"e'entioned thi"d "euisite $as not satisfied. *he state'ents iven b%

the sou"ces of info"'ation of Ma6o" En"iue failed to ualif% as (official info"'ation,( the"e

bein no sho$in that, at the ve"% least, the% $e"e unde" a dut% to ive the state'ents fo" "eco"d.

3i'ila"l%, the police "epo"t in this case is inad'issible fo" the pu"pose of p"ovin the t"uth of the

state'ents contained the"ein but is ad'issible insofa" as it constitutes pa"t of the testi'on% of P20

Dillanueva.

In an% case, the Cou"t holds that po"tions of P20 DillanuevaLs testi'on% $hich $e"e of his pe"sonal

no$lede suffice to p"ove that #ose #ueo indeed died as a "esult of the elevato" c"ash. P20 Dillanueva

had seen #ueoLs "e'ains at the 'o"ue,1/ 'ain the latte"Ls death be%ond dispute. P20 Dillanueva also

conducted an ocula" inspection of the p"e'ises of the buildin the da% afte" the incident10 and sa$ the

platfo"' fo" hi'self.1 +e obse"ved that the platfo"' $as c"ushed1 and that it $as totall% da'aed.1 P20Dillanueva also "eui"ed =a"cia and <ab"o to b"in the chain bloc to the police headua"te"s. ?pon

inspection, he noticed that the chain $as detached f"o' the liftin 'achine, $ithout an% pin o" bolt.1

)hat petitione" taes pa"ticula" e&ception to is P20 DillanuevaLs testi'on% that the cause of the fall of

the platfo"' $as the loosenin of the bolt f"o' the chain bloc. It is clai'ed that such po"tion of thetesti'on% is 'e"e opinion. 3ub6ect to ce"tain e&ceptions,1: the opinion of a $itness is ene"all% not

ad'issible.19

Petitione"Ls contention, ho$eve", loses "elevance in the face of the application of res ipsa lo)uitur b% theCA. *he effect of the doct"ine is to $a""ant a p"esu'ption o" infe"ence that the 'e"e fall of the elevato"

$as a "esult of the pe"son havin cha"e of the inst"u'entalit% $as nelient. As a "ule of evidence, the

doct"ine of res ipsa lo)uitur is peculia" to the la$ of nelience $hich "econies that prima

facie nelience 'a% be established $ithout di"ect p"oof and fu"nishes a substitute fo" specific p"oof of

nelience./!

*he concept of res ipsa lo)uitur has been e&plained in this $ise>














7/23/2019 cases pfr


)hile nelience is not o"dina"il% infe""ed o" p"esu'ed, and $hile the 'e"e happenin of an

accident o" in6u"% $ill not ene"all% ive "ise to an infe"ence o" p"esu'ption that it $as due to

nelience on defendantLs pa"t, unde" the doct"ine of "es ipsa louitu", $hich 'eans, lite"all%, the

thin o" t"ansaction speas fo" itself, o" in one 6u"isdiction, that the thin o" inst"u'entalit%

speas fo" itself, the facts o" ci"cu'stances acco'pan%in an in6u"% 'a% be such as to "aise a p"esu'ption, o" at least pe"'it an infe"ence of nelience on the pa"t of the defendant, o" so'e

othe" pe"son $ho is cha"ed $ith nelience.

& & & $he"e it is sho$n that the thin o" inst"u'entalit% $hich caused the in6u"% co'plained of

$as unde" the cont"ol o" 'anae'ent of the defendant, and that the occu""ence "esultin in thein6u"% $as such as in the o"dina"% cou"se of thins $ould not happen if those $ho had its cont"ol

o" 'anae'ent used p"ope" ca"e, the"e is sufficient evidence, o", as so'eti'es stated, "easonable

evidence, in the absence of e&planation b% the defendant, that the in6u"% a"ose f"o' o" $as caused

b% the defendantLs $ant of ca"e./1

2ne of the theo"etical based fo" the doct"ine is its necessit%, i.e., that necessa"% evidence is absent o" not

available.//

*he "es ipsa louitu" doct"ine is based in pa"t upon the theo"% that the defendant in cha"e of the

inst"u'entalit% $hich causes the in6u"% eithe" no$s the cause of the accident o" has the best

oppo"tunit% of asce"tainin it and that the plaintiff has no such no$lede, and the"efo"e is

co'pelled to allee nelience in ene"al te"'s and to "el% upon the p"oof of the happenin of

the accident in o"de" to establish nelience. *he infe"ence $hich the doct"ine pe"'its is

"ounded upon the fact that the chief evidence of the t"ue cause, $hethe" culpable o" innocent, is p"acticall% accessible to the defendant but inaccessible to the in6u"ed pe"son.

It has been said that the doct"ine of "es ipsa louitu" fu"nishes a b"ide b% $hich a plaintiff,

$ithout no$lede of the cause, "eaches ove" to defendant $ho no$s o" should no$ the cause,

fo" an% e&planation of ca"e e&e"cised b% the defendant in "espect of the 'atte" of $hich the

plaintiff co'plains. *he "es ipsa louitu" doct"ine, anothe" cou"t has said, is a "ule of necessit%, in

that it p"oceeds on the theo"% that unde" the peculia" ci"cu'stances in $hich the doct"ine is

applicable, it is $ithin the po$e" of the defendant to sho$ that the"e $as no nelience on his

pa"t, and di"ect p"oof of defendantLs nelience is be%ond plaintiffLs po$e". Acco"dinl%, so'ecou"t add to the th"ee p"e"euisites fo" the application of the "es ipsa louitu" doct"ine the fu"the"

"eui"e'ent that fo" the "es ipsa louitu" doct"ine to appl%, it 'ust appea" that the in6u"ed pa"t%

had no no$lede o" 'eans of no$lede as to the cause of the accident, o" that the pa"t% to be

cha"ed $ith nelience has supe"io" no$lede o" oppo"tunit% fo" e&planation of the accident./0

*he CA held that all the "euisites of res ipsa lo)uitur a"e p"esent in the case at ba">

*he"e is no dispute that appelleeLs husband fell do$n f"o' the 1 th floo" of a buildin to the

base'ent $hile he $as $o"in $ith appellantLs const"uction p"o6ect, "esultin to his death. *heconst"uction site is $ithin the e&clusive cont"ol and 'anae'ent of appellant. It has a safet%

eninee", a p"o6ect supe"intendent, a ca"pente" lead'an and othe"s $ho a"e in co'plete cont"ol of

the situation the"ein. *he ci"cu'stances of an% accident that $ould occu" the"ein a"e peculia"l%

$ithin the no$lede of the appellant o" its e'plo%ees. 2n the othe" hand, the appellee is not in a

position to no$ $hat caused the accident. Res ipsa lo)uitur is a "ule of necessit% and it applies$he"e evidence is absent o" not "eadil% available, p"ovided the follo$in "euisites a"e p"esent>

718 the accident $as of a ind $hich does not o"dina"il% occu" unless so'eone is nelient; 7/8

the inst"u'entalit% o" aenc% $hich caused the in6u"% $as unde" the e&clusive cont"ol of the

7/23/2019 cases pfr


pe"son cha"ed $ith nelience; and 708 the in6u"% suffe"ed 'ust not have been due to an%

volunta"% action o" cont"ibution on the pa"t of the pe"son in6u"ed. & & &.

No $o"e" is oin to fall f"o' the 1th floo" of a buildin to the base'ent $hile pe"fo"'in

$o" in a const"uction site unless so'eone is nelient;G thus, the fi"st "euisite fo" the

application of the "ule of res ipsa lo)uitur is p"esent. As e&plained ea"lie", the const"uction site

$ith all its pa"aphe"nalia and hu'an "esou"ces that liel% caused the in6u"% is unde" the e&clusivecont"ol and 'anae'ent of appellant;G thus,G the second "euisite is also p"esent. No

cont"ibuto"% nelience $as att"ibuted to the appelleeLs deceased husband;G thus,G the last

"euisite is also p"esent. All the "euisites fo" the application of the "ule of res ipsa lo)uitur a"e p"esent, thus a "easonable p"esu'ption o" infe"ence of appellantLs nelience a"ises. & & &./

Petitione" does not dispute the e&istence of the "euisites fo" the application of res ipsa lo)uitur , but

a"ues that the p"esu'ption o" infe"ence that it $as nelient did not a"ise since it (p"oved that it

e&e"cised due ca"e to avoid the accident $hich befell "espondentLs husband.(

Petitione" appa"entl% 'isapp"ehends the p"ocedu"al effect of the doct"ine. As stated ea"lie", the

defendantLs nelience is p"esu'ed o" infe""ed/ $hen the plaintiff establishes the "euisites fo" the

application of res ipsa lo)uitur. 2nce the plaintiff 'aes out a p"i'a facie case of all the ele'ents, the

bu"den then shifts to defendant to e&plain./ *he p"esu'ption o" infe"ence 'a% be "ebutted o" ove"co'e

b% othe" evidence and, unde" app"op"iate ci"cu'stances disputable p"esu'ption, such as that of due ca"e

o" innocence, 'a% out$eih the infe"ence./ It is not fo" the defendant to e&plain o" p"ove its defense to

p"event the p"esu'ption o" infe"ence f"o' a"isin. Evidence b% the defendant of sa%, due ca"e, co'es into

pla% onl% afte" the ci"cu'stances fo" the application of the doct"ine has been established.12wphi1.n3t

In an% case, petitione" cites the s$o"n state'ent of its lead'an <e"dinand <ab"o e&ecuted befo"e the

police investiato" as evidence of its due ca"e. Acco"din to <ab"oLs s$o"n state'ent, the co'pan%

enacted "ules and "eulations fo" the safet% and secu"it% of its $o"e"s. Mo"eove", the lead'an and

the bodegero inspect the chain bloc befo"e allo$in its use.

It is i"onic that petitione" "elies on <ab"oLs s$o"n state'ent as p"oof of its due ca"e but, in a"uin that

p"ivate "espondent failed to p"ove nelience on the pa"t of petitione"Ls e'plo%ees, also assails the sa'e

state'ent fo" bein hea"sa%.

Petitione" is co""ect. <ab"oLs s$o"n state'ent is hea"sa% and inad'issible. Affidavits a"e inad'issible as

evidence unde" the hea"sa% "ule, unless the affiant is placed on the $itness stand to testif% the"eon./: *he

inad'issibilit% of this so"t of evidence is based not onl% on the lac of oppo"tunit% on the pa"t of the

adve"se pa"t% to c"oss-e&a'ine the affiant, but also on the co''onl% no$n fact that, ene"all%, an

affidavit is not p"epa"ed b% the affiant hi'self but b% anothe" $ho uses his o$n lanuae in $"itin the

affiantLs state'ents $hich 'a% eithe" be o'itted o" 'isunde"stood b% the one $"itin the'. /9 Petitione",

the"efo"e, cannot use said state'ent as p"oof of its due ca"e an% 'o"e than p"ivate "espondent can use it to

p"ove the cause of he" husbandLs death. Re"ettabl%, petitione" does not cite an% othe" evidence to "ebutthe infe"ence o" p"esu'ption of nelience a"isin f"o' the application of res ipsa lo)uitur , o" to

establish an% defense "elatin to the incident.

Ne&t, petitione" a"ues that p"ivate "espondent had p"eviousl% availed of the death benefits p"ovided

unde" the 5abo" Code and is, the"efo"e, p"ecluded f"o' clai'in f"o' the deceasedLs e'plo%e" da'aes

unde" the Civil Code.

A"ticle 10 of the 5abo" Code states>












7/23/2019 cases pfr


A"ticle 10. E&tent of liabilit%. ?nless othe"$ise p"ovided, the liabilit% of the 3tate Insu"ance

<und unde" this *itle shall be e&clusive and in place of all othe" liabilities of the e'plo%e" to the

e'plo%ee, his dependents o" an%one othe"$ise entitled to "eceive da'aes on behalf of the

e'plo%ee o" his dependents. *he pa%'ent of co'pensation unde" this *itle shall not ba" the

"ecove"% of benefits as p"ovided fo" in 3ection 99 of the Revised Ad'inist"ative Code, RepublicAct Nu'be"ed Eleven hund"ed si&t%-one, as a'ended, Republic Act Nu'be"ed 3i& hund"ed ten,

as a'ended, Republic Act Nu'be"ed <o"t%-eiht hund"ed si&t%-fou" as a'ended, and othe" la$s$hose benefits a"e ad'iniste"ed b% the 3%ste' o" b% othe" aencies of the ove"n'ent.

*he p"ecu"so" of A"ticle 10 of the 5abo" Code, 3ection of the )o"'enLs Co'pensation Act, p"ovidedthat>

3ection . "xclusive right to compensation. *he "ihts and "e'edies "anted b% this Act to an

e'plo%ee b% "eason of a pe"sonal in6u"% entitlin hi' to co'pensation shall e&clude all othe"

"ihts and "e'edies acc"uin to the e'plo%ee, his pe"sonal "ep"esentatives, dependents o" nea"est

of in aainst the e'plo%e" unde" the Civil Code and othe" la$s because of said in6u"% & & &.

)hethe" 3ection of the )o"'enLs Co'pensation Act allo$ed "ecove"% unde" said Act as $ell as unde"

the Civil Code used to be the sub6ect of conflictin decisions. *he Cou"t finall% settled the 'atte"

in 4loresca vs.Philex Mining &orporation,0! $hich involved a cave-in "esultin in the death of the

e'plo%ees of the Phile& Minin Co"po"ation. Allein that the 'inin co"po"ation, in violation of

ove"n'ent "ules and "eulations, failed to tae the "eui"ed p"ecautions fo" the p"otection of the

e'plo%ees, the hei"s of the deceased e'plo%ees filed a co'plaint aainst Phile& Minin in the Cou"t of

<i"st Instance 7C<I8. ?pon 'otion of Phile& Minin, the C<I dis'issed the co'plaint fo" lac of 6u"isdiction. *he hei"s souht "elief f"o' this Cou"t.

Add"essin the issue of $hethe" the hei"s had a choice of "e'edies, 'a6o"it% of the Cou"t "n

#anc,01 follo$in the "ule in Paca5a vs. &ebu %utobus &ompany, held in the affi"'ative.

)E no$ co'e to the ue"% as to $hethe" o" not the in6u"ed e'plo%ee o" his hei"s in case of death

have a "iht of selection o" choice of action bet$een availin the'selves of the $o"e"Ls "iht

unde" the )o"'enLs Co'pensation Act and suin in the "eula" cou"ts unde" the Civil Code fo"

hihe" da'aes 7actual, 'o"al and e&e'pla"%8 f"o' the e'plo%e"s b% vi"tue of the nelience o"

fault of the e'plo%e"s o" $hethe" the% 'a% avail the'selves cu'ulativel% of both actions, i.e.,

collect the li'ited co'pensation unde" the )o"'enLs Co'pensation Act and sue in addition fo"

da'aes in the "eula" cou"ts.

In disposin of a si'ila" issue, this Cou"t in Pacaa vs. Cebu Autobus Co'pan%, 0/ 3CRA /,

"uled thatan in6u"ed $o"e" has a choice of eithe" to "ecove" f"o' the e'plo%e" the fi&ed a'ounts

set b% the )o"'enLs Co'pensation Act o" to p"osecute an o"dina"% civil action aainst the

to"tfeaso" fo" hihe" da'aes but he cannot pu"sue both cou"ses of action si'ultaneousl%.

?nde"sco"in supplied.G

Neve"theless, the Cou"t allo$ed so'e of the petitione"s in said case to p"oceed $ith thei" suit unde" the

Civil Code despite havin availed of the benefits p"ovided unde" the )o"'enLs Co'pensation Act. *he

Cou"t "easoned>

)ith "ea"d to the othe" petitione"s, it $as alleed b% Phile& in its 'otion to dis'iss dated Ma%

1, 19: befo"e the cou"t a )uo, that the hei"s of the deceased e'plo%ees, na'el% E'e"ito 2b"a,

5a""% Dilla", #"., Au"elio 5anua, 5o"eno Isla and 3atu"nino sub'itted notices and clai's fo"






7/23/2019 cases pfr


co'pensation to the Reional 2ffice No. 1 of the then 4epa"t'ent of 5abo" and all of the' have

been paid in full as of Auust /, 19, e&cept 3atu"nino Ma"tine $hose hei"s decided that the%

be paid in install'ents & & &. 3uch alleation $as ad'itted b% he"ein petitione"s in thei"

opposition to the 'otion to dis'iss dated 'a% /, 19: & & & in the lo$e" cou"t, but the% set up

the defense that the clai's $e"e filed unde" the )o"'enLs Co'pensation Act befo"e the%lea"ned of the official "epo"t of the co''ittee c"eated to investiate the accident $hich

established the c"i'inal nelience and violation of la$ b% Phile&, and $hich "epo"t $asfo"$a"ded b% the 4i"ecto" of Mines to then E&ecutive 3ec"eta"% Rafael 3alas in a lette" dated

2ctobe" 19, 19 onl% & & &.

)E hold that althouh the othe" petitione"s had "eceived the benefits unde" the )o"'enLs

Co'pensation Act, such '% not p"eclude the' f"o' b"inin an action befo"e the "eula" cou"t

because the% beca'e coniant of the fact that Phile& has been "e'iss in its cont"actual

obliations $ith the deceased 'ine"s onl% afte" "eceivin co'pensation unde" the Act. +ad

petitione"s been a$a"e of said violation of ove"n'ent "ules and "eulations b% Phile&, and of its

nelience, the% $ould not have souht "ed"ess unde" the )o"'enLs Co'pensation Co''ission

$hich a$a"ded a lesse" a'ount fo" co'pensation. *he choice of the fi"st "e'ed% $as based on

ino"ance o" a 'istae of fact, $hich nullifies the choice as it $as not an intellient choice. *he

case should the"efo"e be "e'anded to the lo$e" cou"t fo" fu"the" p"oceedins. +o$eve", shouldthe petitione"s be successful in thei" bid befo"e the lo$e" cou"t, the pa%'ents 'ade unde" the

)o"'enLs Co'pensation Act should be deducted f"o' the da'aes that 'a% be dec"eed in thei"

favo". ?nde"sco"in supplied.G

*he "ulin in 4loresca p"ovidin the clai'ant a choice of "e'edies $as "eite"ated in 6smael Maritime

&orporation vs. %velino,0/ 7da. 'e (evero vs. 4eliciano8o,00 and Marcopper Mining &orp. vs.

%beleda.0 In the last case, the Cou"t aain "econied that a clai'ant $ho had been paid unde" the Act

could still sue unde" the Civil Code. *he Cou"t said>

In the Robles case, it $as held that clai's fo" da'aes sustained b% $o"e"s in the cou"se of thei"

e'plo%'ent could be filed onl% unde" the )o"'enLs Co'pensation 5a$, to the e&clusion of all

fu"the" clai's unde" othe" la$s. In <lo"esca, this doct"ine $as ab"oated in favo" of the ne$ "ulethat the clai'ants 'a% invoe eithe" the )o"'enLs Co'pensation Act o" the p"ovisions of the

Civil Code, sub6ect to the conseuence that the choice of one "e'ed% $ill e&clude the othe" and

that the acceptance of co'pensation unde" the "e'ed% chosen $ill p"eclude a clai' fo" additional

benefits unde" the othe" "e'ed%. *he e&ception is $he"e a clai'ant $ho has al"ead% been paid

unde" the )o"'enLs Co'pensation Act 'a% still sue fo" da'aes unde" the Civil Code on the

basis of supe"venin facts o" develop'ents occu""in afte" he opted fo" the fi"st "e'ed%.

7?nde"sco"in supplied.8

+e"e, the CA held that p"ivate "espondentLs case ca'e unde" the e&ception because p"ivate "espondent

$as una$a"e of petitione"Ls nelience $hen she filed he" clai' fo" death benefits f"o' the 3tate

Insu"ance <und. P"ivate "espondent filed the civil co'plaint fo" da'aes afte" she "eceived a cop% of the

police investiation "epo"t and the P"osecuto"Ls Me'o"andu' dis'issin the c"i'inal co'plaint aainst

petitione"Ls pe"sonnel. )hile statin that the"e $as no nelience att"ibutable to the "espondents in the

co'plaint, the p"osecuto" neve"theless noted in the Me'o"andu' that, (if at all,( the (case is civil in

natu"e.( *he CA thus applied the e&ception in 4loresca>

& & & )e do not a"ee that appellee has no$lede of the alleed nelience of appellant as ea"l%

as Nove'be" /, 199!, the date of the police investiato"Ls "epo"t. *he appellee 'e"el% e&ecuted

he" s$o"n state'ent befo"e the police investiato" conce"nin he" pe"sonal ci"cu'stances, he"








7/23/2019 cases pfr


"elation to the victi', and he" no$lede of the accident. 3he did not file the co'plaint fo"

(3i'ple Nelience Resultin to +o'icide( aainst appellantLs e'plo%ees. It $as the

investiato" $ho "eco''ended the filin of said case and his supe"viso" "efe""ed the sa'e to the

p"osecuto"Ls office. *his is a standa"d ope"atin p"ocedu"e fo" police investiato"s $hich appellee

'a% not have even no$n. *his 'a% e&plain $h% no co'plainant is 'entioned in the p"eli'ina"%state'ent of the public p"osecuto" in he" 'e'o"andu' dated <eb"ua"% , 1991, to $it>

(Respondent <e"dinand <ab"o & & & a"e bein cha"ed b% co'plainant of (3i'ple NelienceResultin to +o'icide.( It is also possible that the appellee did not have a chance to appea"

befo"e the public p"osecuto" as can be infe""ed f"o' the follo$in state'ent in said

'e'o"andu'> (Respondents $ho $e"e notified pu"suant to 5a$ $aived thei" "ihts to p"esent

cont"ove"tin evidence,( thus the"e $as no "eason fo" the public p"osecuto" to su''on the

appellee. +ence, notice of appellantLs nelience cannot be i'puted on appellee befo"e she

applied fo" death benefits unde" ECC o" befo"e she "eceived the fi"st pa%'ent the"ef"o'. +e"

usin the police investiation "epo"t to suppo"t he" co'plaint filed on Ma% 9, 1991 'a% 6ust be an

afte"thouht afte" "eceivin a cop% of the <eb"ua"% , 1991 Me'o"andu' of the P"osecuto"Ls

2ffice dis'issin the c"i'inal co'plaint fo" insufficienc% of evidence, statin the"ein that> (*he

death of the victi' is not att"ibutable to an% nelience on the pa"t of the "espondents. If at all

and as sho$n b% the "eco"ds this case is civil in natu"e.( 7?nde"sco"in supplied.8 Conside"in the

fo"eoin, )e a"e 'o"e inclined to believe appelleeLs alleation that she lea"ned about appellantLsnelience onl% afte" she applied fo" and "eceived the benefits unde" ECC. *his is a 'istae of

fact that $ill 'ae this case fall unde" the e&ception held in the <lo"esca "ulin.0

*he CA fu"the" held that not onl% $as p"ivate "espondent ino"ant of the facts, but of he" "ihts as $ell>

& & &. Appellee Ma"ia #ueoG testified that she has "eached onl% ele'enta"% school fo" he"

educational attain'ent; that she did not no$ $hat da'aes could be "ecove"ed f"o' the death of

he" husband; and that she did not no$ that she 'a% also "ecove" 'o"e f"o' the Civil Code than

f"o' the ECC. & & &.0

Petitione" i'puns the fo"eoin "ulins. It contends that p"ivate "espondent (failed to allee in he"

co'plaint that he" application and "eceipt of benefits f"o' the ECC $e"e attended b% ino"ance o"'istae of fact. Not bein an issue sub'itted du"in the t"ial, the t"ial cou"t had no autho"it% to hea" o"

ad6udicate that issue.(

Petitione" also clai's that p"ivate "espondent could not have been ino"ant of the facts because as ea"l% as

Nove'be" /:, 199!, p"ivate "espondent $as the co'plainant in a c"i'inal co'plaint fo" (3i'ple

Nelience Resultin to +o'icide( aainst petitione"Ls e'plo%ees. 2n <eb"ua"% , 1991, t$o 'onths

befo"e the filin of the action in the lo$e" cou"t, P"osecuto" 5o"na 5ee issued a "esolution findin that,

althouh the"e $as insufficient evidence aainst petitione"Ls e'plo%ees, the case $as (civil in natu"e.(

*hese pu"po"tedl% sho$ that p"io" to he" "eceipt of death benefits f"o' the ECC on #anua"% /, 1991 and

eve"% 'onth the"eafte", p"ivate "espondent also ne$ of the t$o choices of "e'edies available to he" and

%et she chose to clai' and "eceive the benefits f"o' the ECC.

)hen a pa"t% havin no$lede of the facts 'aes an election bet$een inconsistent "e'edies, the

election is final and ba"s an% action, suit, o" p"oceedin inconsistent $ith the elected "e'ed%, in the

absence of f"aud b% the othe" pa"t%. *he fi"st act of election acts as a ba".0 Euitable in natu"e, the

doct"ine of election of "e'edies is desined to 'itiate possible unfai"ness to both pa"ties. It "ests on the

'o"al p"e'ise that it is fai" to hold people "esponsible fo" thei" choices. *he pu"pose of the doct"ine is not

to p"event an% "ecou"se to an% "e'ed%, but to p"event a double "ed"ess fo" a sinle $"on.0:







7/23/2019 cases pfr


*he choice of a pa"t% bet$een inconsistent "e'edies "esults in a @*i8r b% election. +ence, the "ule

in 4lorescathat a clai'ant cannot si'ultaneousl% pu"sue "ecove"% unde" the 5abo" Code and p"osecute an

o"dina"% cou"se of action unde" the Civil Code. *he clai'ant, b% his choice of one "e'ed%, is dee'ed to

have $aived the othe".

)aive" is the intentional "elinuish'ent of a known "iht.09

ItG is an act of unde"standin that p"esupposes that a pa"t% has no$lede of its "ihts, but

chooses not to asse"t the'. It 'ust be ene"all% sho$n b% the pa"t% clai'in a $aive" that the

pe"son aainst $ho' the $aive" is asse"ted had at the ti'e no$lede, actual o" const"uctive, of

the e&istence of the pa"t%Ls "ihts o" of all 'ate"ial facts upon $hich the% depended. )he"e one

lacs no$lede of a "iht, the"e is no basis upon $hich $aive" of it can "est. Ino"ance of a

'ate"ial fact neates $aive", and $aive" cannot be established b% a consent iven unde" a 'istae

o" 'isapp"ehension of fact.

A pe"son 'aes a no$in and intellient $aive" $hen that pe"son no$s that a "iht e&ists and

has adeuate no$lede upon $hich to 'ae an intellient decision.

)aive" "eui"es a no$lede of the facts basic to the e&e"cise of the "iht $aived, $ith an

a$a"eness of its conseuences. *hat a $aive" is 'ade no$inl% and intellientl% 'ust be

illust"ated on the "eco"d o" b% the evidence.!

*hat lac of no$lede of a fact that nullifies the election of a "e'ed% is the basis fo" the e&ception

in 4loresca.

It is in liht of the fo"eoin p"inciples that $e add"ess petitione"Ls contentions.

)aive" is a defense, and it $as not incu'bent upon p"ivate "espondent, as plaintiff, to allee in he"

co'plaint that she had availed of benefits f"o' the ECC. It is, thus, e""oneous fo" petitione" to bu"den

p"ivate "espondent $ith "aisin $aive" as an issue. 2n the cont"a"%, it is the defendant $ho ouht to plead$aive", as petitione" did in paes /-0 of its Ans$e";1 othe"$ise, the defense is $aived. It is, the"efo"e,

pe"ple&in fo" petitione" to no$ contend that the t"ial cou"t had no 6u"isdiction ove" the issue $hen

petitione" itself pleaded $aive" in the p"oceedins befo"e the t"ial cou"t.

4oes the evidence sho$ that p"ivate "espondent ne$ of the facts that led to he" husbandLs death and the

"ihts pe"tainin to a choice of "e'ediesQ

It bea"s st"essin that $hat neates $aive" is lac of no$lede o" a 'istae of fact . In this case, the

(fact( that se"ved as a basis fo" nullif%in the $aive" is the negligence of petitione"Ls e'plo%ees, of $hich

p"ivate "espondent pu"po"tedl% lea"ned onl% afte" the p"osecuto" issued a "esolution statin that the"e 'a%

be civil liabilit%. In 4loresca, it $as the negligence of the 'inin co"po"ation and its violation of

government rules and regulations. Nelience, o" violation of ove"n'ent "ules and "eulations, fo" that'atte", ho$eve", is not a fact, but aconclusion of law, ove" $hich onl% the cou"ts have the final sa%. 3uch

a conclusion binds no one until the cou"ts have dec"eed so. It appea"s, the"efo"e, that the p"inciple that

ino"ance o" 'istae of fact nullifies a $aive" has been 'isapplied in 4loresca and in the case at ba".

In an% event, the"e is no p"oof that p"ivate "espondent ne$ that he" husband died in the elevato" c"ash

$hen on Nove'be" 1, 199! she acco'plished he" application fo" benefits f"o' the ECC. *he police

investiation "epo"t is dated Nove'be" /, 199!, 1! da%s afte" the acco'plish'ent of the fo"'. Petitione"

filed the application in he" behalf on Nove'be" /, 199!.




7/23/2019 cases pfr


*he"e is also no sho$in that p"ivate "espondent ne$ of the "e'edies available to he" $hen the clai'

befo"e the ECC $as filed. 2n the cont"a"%, p"ivate "espondent testified that she $as not a$a"e of he"

"ihts.

Petitione", thouh, a"ues that unde" A"ticle 0 of the Civil Code, ino"ance of the la$ e&cuses no one

f"o' co'pliance the"e$ith. As 6udicial decisions appl%in o" inte"p"etin the la$s o" the Constitution

fo"' pa"t of the Philippine leal s%ste' 7A"ticle :, Civil Code8, p"ivate "espondent cannot clai'ino"ance of this Cou"tLs "ulin in 4loresca allo$in a choice of "e'edies.

*he a"u'ent has no 'e"it. *he application of A"ticle 0 is li'ited to 'andato"% and p"ohibito"%

la$s./ *his 'a% be deduced f"o' the lanuae of the p"ovision, $hich, not$ithstandin a pe"sonLs

ino"ance, does not e&cuse his o" he" compliance $ith the la$s. *he "ule in 4loresca allo$in p"ivate

"espondent a choice of "e'edies is neithe" 'andato"% no" p"ohibito"%. Acco"dinl%, he" ino"ance the"eof

cannot be held aainst he".

<inall%, the Cou"t 'odifies the affi"'ance of the a$a"d of da'aes. *he "eco"ds do not indicate the total

a'ount p"ivate "espondent ouht to "eceive f"o' the ECC, althouh it appea"s f"o' E&hibit (O(0 that she

"eceived P0,:1.: as initial pa%'ent "ep"esentin the acc"ued pension f"o' Nove'be" 199! to Ma"ch

1991. +e" initial 'onthl% pension, acco"din to the sa'e E&hibit (O,( $as P9.9 and p"esent total

'onthl% pension $as P1.!. )hethe" the total a'ount she $ill eventuall% "eceive f"o' the ECC is less

than the su' of P,!!!.!! in total da'aes a$a"ded b% the t"ial cou"t is sub6ect to speculation, and the

case is "e'anded to the t"ial cou"t fo" such dete"'ination. 3hould the t"ial cou"t find that its a$a"d is

"eate" than that of the ECC, pa%'ents al"ead% "eceived b% p"ivate "espondent unde" the 5abo" Code shall

be deducted f"o' the t"ial cou"t@L a$a"d of da'aes. Consistent $ith ou" "ulin in 4loresca, thisad6udication ai's to p"event double co'pensation.

(ERE)ORE, the case is REMANDED to the Reional *"ial Cou"t of Pasi Cit% to dete"'ine $hethe"

the a$a"d dec"eed in its decision is 'o"e than that of the ECC. 3hould the a$a"d dec"eed b% the t"ial cou"t

be "eate" than that a$a"ded b% the ECC, pa%'ents al"ead% 'ade to p"ivate "espondent pu"suant to the

5abo" Code shall be deducted the"ef"o'. In all othe" "espects, the 4ecision of the Cou"t of Appeals

is AFFIRMED.

SO ORERE.






Documents

cases pfr