G.R. No. L-64279
April 30, 1984
ANSELMO L. PESIGAN
and MARCELINO L. PESIGAN, petitioners,
vs.
JUDGE DOMINGO MEDINA
ANGELES, Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City Branch 129, acting for REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT of Camarines Norte, now presided over by JUDGE NICANOR ORIÑO, Daet
Branch 40; DRA. BELLA S. MIRANDA, ARNULFO V. ZENAROSA, ET AL., respondents.
Quiazon, De Guzman
Makalintal and Barot for petitioners.
The Solicitor General
for respondents.
AQUINO, J.:
At issue in this case
is the enforceability, before publication in the Official Gazette of June
14, 1982, of Presidential Executive Order No. 626-A dated October
25, 1980, providing for the confiscation and forfeiture by
the government of carabaos transported from one province to another.
Anselmo L. Pesigan
and Marcelo L. Pesigan, carabao dealers, transported in an Isuzu ten-wheeler
truck in the evening of April 2, 1982 twenty-six carabaos and a calf from
Sipocot, Camarines Sur with Padre Garcia, Batangas, as the destination.
They were provided
with (1) a health certificate from the provincial veterinarian of Camarines
Sur, issued under the Revised Administrative Code and Presidential Decree No.
533, the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974; (2) a permit to transport large
cattle issued under the authority of the provincial commander; and (3) three
certificates of inspection, one from the Constabulary command attesting that
the carabaos were not included in the list of lost, stolen and questionable
animals; one from the LIvestock inspector, Bureau of Animal Industry of
Libmanan, Camarines Sur and one from the mayor of Sipocot.
In spite of the
permit to transport and the said four certificates, the carabaos, while passing
at Basud, Camarines Norte, were confiscated by Lieutenant Arnulfo V. Zenarosa,
the town's police station commander, and by Doctor Bella S. Miranda, provincial
veterinarian. The confiscation was basis on the aforementioned Executive Order
No. 626-A which provides "that henceforth, no carabao, regardless of age,
sex, physical condition or purpose and no carabeef shall be transported
from one province to another. The carabaos or carabeef transported in
violation of this Executive Order as amended shall be subject to confiscation
and forfeiture by the government to be distributed ... to deserving
farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit, in
the case of carabaos" (78 OG 3144).
Doctor Miranda
distributed the carabaos among twenty-five farmers of Basud, and to a farmer
from the Vinzons municipal nursery (Annex 1).
The Pesigans filed
against Zenarosa and Doctor Miranda an action for replevin for the recovery of
the carabaos allegedly valued at P70,000 and damages of P92,000. The replevin
order could not be executed by the sheriff. In his order of April 25, 1983
Judge Domingo Medina Angeles, who heard the case at Daet and who was later
transferred to Caloocan City, dismissed the case for lack of cause of action.
The Pesigans appealed
to this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and section 25 of the Interim
Rules and pursuant to Republic Act No. 5440, a 1968 law which superseded Rule
42 of the Rules of Court.
We hold that the said
executive order should not be enforced against the Pesigans on April 2,
1982 because, as already noted, it is a penal regulation published
more than two months later in the Official Gazette dated June 14,
1982. It became effective only fifteen days thereafter as provided in
article 2 of the Civil Code and section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code.
The word
"laws" in article 2 (article 1 of the old Civil Code) includes
circulars and regulations which prescribe penalties. Publication is necessary
to apprise the public of the contents of the regulations and make the said
penalties binding on the persons affected thereby. (People vs. Que Po Lay, 94
Phil. 640; Lim Hoa Ting vs. Central Bank of the Phils., 104 Phil. 573; Balbuna
vs. Secretary of Education, 110 Phil. 150.)
The Spanish Supreme
Court ruled that "bajo la denominacion generica de leyes, se comprenden
tambien los reglamentos, Reales decretos, Instrucciones, Circulares y Reales
ordenes dictadas de conformidad con las mismas por el Gobierno en uso de su
potestad (1 Manresa, Codigo Civil, 7th Ed., p. 146.)
Thus, in the Que
Po Lay case, a person, convicted by the trial court of having violated
Central Bank Circular No. 20 and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and to
pay a fine of P1,000, was acquitted by this Court because the
circular was published in the Official Gazette three months after his
conviction. He was not bound by the circular.
That ruling applies
to a violation of Executive Order No. 626-A because its confiscation
and forfeiture provision or sanction makes it a penal statute. Justice
and fairness dictate that the public must be informed of that provision by
means of publication in the Gazette before violators of the executive order can
be bound thereby.
The cases of Police
Commission vs. Bello, L-29960, January 30, 1971, 37 SCRA 230 and Philippine
Blooming Mills vs. Social Security System, 124 Phil. 499, cited by the
respondents, do not involve the enforcement of any penal regulation.
Commonwealth Act No.
638 requires that all Presidential executive orders having general
applicability should be published in the Official Gazette. It provides that
"every order or document which shag prescribe a penalty shall be deemed to
have general applicability and legal effect."
Indeed, the practice
has always been to publish executive orders in the Gazette. Section 551 of the
Revised Administrative Code provides that even bureau "regulations and
orders shall become effective only when approved by the Department Head and
published in the Official Gazette or otherwise publicly promulgated". (See
Commissioner of Civil Service vs. Cruz, 122 Phil. 1015.)
In the instant case,
the livestock inspector and the provincial veterinarian of Camarines Norte and
the head of the Public Affairs Office of the Ministry of Agriculture were
unaware of Executive Order No. 626-A. The Pesigans could not have been expected
to be cognizant of such an executive order.
It results that they
have a cause of action for the recovery of the carabaos. The summary
confiscation was not in order. The recipients of the carabaos should return
them to the Pesigans. However, they cannot transport the carabaos to Batangas
because they are now bound by the said executive order. Neither can they
recover damages. Doctor Miranda and Zenarosa acted in good faith in ordering
the forfeiture and dispersal of the carabaos.
WHEREFORE, the trial
court's order of dismissal and the confiscation and dispersal of the carabaos
are reversed and set aside. Respondents Miranda and Zenarosa are ordered to
restore the carabaos, with the requisite documents, to the petitioners, who as
owners are entitled to possess the same, with the right to dispose of them in
Basud or Sipocot, Camarines Sur. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, (Chairman),
Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, and Escolin, JJ., concur.
De Castro, J., took
no part.
Separate Opinions
ABAD SANTOS, J., concurring:
The Pesigans are
entitled to the return of their carabaos or the value of each carabao which is
not returned for any reason. The Pesigans are also entitled to a reasonable
rental for each carabao from the twenty six farmers who used them. The farmers
should not enrich themselves at the expense of the Pesigans.
Separate Opinions
ABAD SANTOS, J., concurring:
The Pesigans are
entitled to the return of their carabaos or the value of each carabao which is
not returned for any reason. The Pesigans are also entitled to a reasonable
rental for each carabao from the twenty six farmers who used them. The farmers
should not enrich themselves at the expense of the Pesigans.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento