G.R. No. L-63915 April 24, 1985 LORENZO M. TAADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO, and MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD, INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. [MABINI], petitioners, vs. HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, in his capacity as Executive Assistant to the President, HON. JOAQUIN VENUS, in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to the President , MELQUIADES P. DE LA CRUZ, in his capacity as Director, Malacaang Records Office, and FLORENDO S. PABLO, in his capacity as Director, Bureau of Printing, respondents. ESCOLIN, J.: Invoking the people's right to be informed on matters of public concern, a right recognized in Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, 1 as well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish, and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders. Specifically, the publication of the following presidential issuances is sought: a] Presidential Decrees Nos. 12, 22, 37, 38, 59, 64, 103, 171, 179, 184, 197, 200, 234, 265, 286, 298, 303, 312, 324, 325, 326, 337, 355, 358, 359, 360, 361, 368, 404, 406, 415, 427, 429, 445, 447, 473, 486, 491, 503, 504, 521, 528, 551, 566, 573, 574, 594, 599, 644, 658, 661, 718, 731, 733, 793, 800, 802, 835, 836, 923, 935, 961, 1017-1030, 1050, 1060-1061, 1085, 1143, 1165, 1166, 1242, 1246, 1250, 1278, 1279, 1300, 1644, 1772, 1808, 1810, 1813-1817, 1819-1826, 1829-1840, 1842-1847. b] Letter of Instructions Nos.: 10, 39, 49, 72, 107, 108, 116, 130, 136, 141, 150, 153, 155, 161, 173, 180, 187, 188, 192, 193, 199, 202, 204, 205, 209, 211-213, 215-224, 226-228, 231-239, 241-245, 248, 251, 253-261, 263-269, 271-273, 275-283, 285-289, 291, 293, 297-299, 301-303, 309, 312-315, 325, 327, 343, 346, 349, 357, 358, 362, 367, 370, 382, 385, 386, 396-397, 405, 438-440, 444- 445, 473, 486, 488, 498, 501, 399, 527, 561, 576, 587, 594, 599, 600, 602, 609, 610, 611, 612, 615, 641, 642, 665, 702, 712-713, 726, 837-839, 878-879, 881, 882, 939-940, 964,997,1149-1178,1180-1278. c] General Orders Nos.: 14, 52, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64 & 65. d] Proclamation Nos.: 1126, 1144, 1147, 1151, 1196, 1270, 1281, 13191526, 1529, 1532, 1535, 1538, 1540-1547, 1550-1558, 1561-1588, 1590-1595, 1594-1600, 1606-1609, 1612-1628, 1630-1649, 1694-1695, 1697-1701, 17051723, 1731-1734, 1737-1742, 1744, 1746-1751, 1752, 1754, 1762, 1764-1787, 1789-1795, 1797, 1800, 1802-1804, 1806-1807, 1812-1814, 1816, 1825-1826, 1829, 1831-1832, 1835-1836, 1839-1840, 1843-1844, 1846-1847, 1849, 18531858, 1860, 1866, 1868, 1870, 1876-1889, 1892, 1900, 1918, 1923, 1933, 1952, 1963, 1965-1966, 1968-1984, 1986-2028, 2030-2044, 2046-2145, 21472161, 2163-2244. e] Executive Orders Nos.: 411, 413, 414, 427, 429-454, 457- 471, 474-492, 494-507, 509-510, 522, 524-528, 531-532, 536, 538, 543-544, 549, 551-553, 560, 563, 567-568, 570, 574, 593, 594, 598-604, 609, 611- 647, 649-677, 679-

703, 705-707, 712-786, 788-852, 854-857. f] Letters of Implementation Nos.: 7, 8, 9, 10, 11-22, 25-27, 39, 50, 51, 59, 76, 80-81, 92, 94, 95, 107, 120, 122, 123. g] Administrative Orders Nos.: 347, 348, 352-354, 360- 378, 380-433, 436439. The respondents, through the Solicitor General, would have this case dismissed outright on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality or standing to bring the instant petition. The view is submitted that in the absence of any showing that petitioners are personally and directly affected or prejudiced by the alleged non-publication of the presidential issuances in question 2 said petitioners are without the requisite legal personality to institute this mandamus proceeding, they are not being "aggrieved parties" within the meaning of Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which we quote: SEC. 3. Petition for Mandamus.When any tribunal, corporation, board or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use a rd enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the defendant, immediately or at some other specified time, to do the act required to be done to Protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the defendant. Upon the other hand, petitioners maintain that since the subject of the petition concerns a public right and its object is to compel the performance of a public duty, they need not show any specific interest for their petition to be given due course. The issue posed is not one of first impression. As early as the 1910 case of Severino vs. Governor General, 3 this Court held that while the general rule is that "a writ of mandamus would be granted to a private individual only in those cases where he has some private or particular interest to be subserved, or some particular right to be protected, independent of that which he holds with the public at large," and "it is for the public officers exclusively to apply for the writ when public rights are to be subserved [Mithchell vs. Boardmen, 79 M.e., 469]," nevertheless, "when the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real party in interest and the relator at whose instigation the proceedings are instituted need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result, it being sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as such interested in the execution of the laws [High, Extraordinary Legal Remedies, 3rd ed., sec. 431]. Thus, in said case, this Court recognized the relator Lope Severino, a private individual, as a proper party to the mandamus proceedings brought to compel the Governor General to call a special election for the position of municipal president in the town of Silay, Negros Occidental. Speaking for this Court, Mr. Justice Grant T. Trent said:

We are therefore of the opinion that the weight of authority supports the proposition that the relator is a proper party to proceedings of this character when a public right is sought to be enforced. If the general rule in America were otherwise, we think that it would not be applicable to the case at bar for the reason 'that it is always dangerous to apply a general rule to a particular case without keeping in mind the reason for the rule, because, if under the particular circumstances the reason for the rule does not exist, the rule itself is not applicable and reliance upon the rule may well lead to error' No reason exists in the case at bar for applying the general rule insisted upon by counsel for the respondent. The circumstances which surround this case are different from those in the United States, inasmuch as if the relator is not a proper party to these proceedings no other person could be, as we have seen that it is not the duty of the law officer of the Government to appear and represent the people in cases of this character. The reasons given by the Court in recognizing a private citizen's legal personality in the aforementioned case apply squarely to the present petition. Clearly, the right sought to be enforced by petitioners herein is a public right recognized by no less than the fundamental law of the land. If petitioners were not allowed to institute this proceeding, it would indeed be difficult to conceive of any other person to initiate the same, considering that the Solicitor General, the government officer generally empowered to represent the people, has entered his appearance for respondents in this case. Respondents further contend that publication in the Official Gazette is not a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. It is thus submitted that since the presidential issuances in question contain special provisions as to the date they are to take effect, publication in the Official Gazette is not indispensable for their effectivity. The point stressed is anchored on Article 2 of the Civil Code: Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided, ... The interpretation given by respondent is in accord with this Court's construction of said article. In a long line of decisions, 4 this Court has ruled that publication in the Official Gazette is necessary in those cases where the legislation itself does not provide for its effectivity date-for then the date of publication is material for determining its date of effectivity, which is the fifteenth day following its publication-but not when the law itself provides for the date when it goes into effect. Respondents' argument, however, is logically correct only insofar as it equates the effectivity of laws with the fact of publication. Considered in the light of other statutes applicable to the issue at hand, the conclusion is easily reached that said Article 2 does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity. Thus, Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 638 provides as follows:

Section 1. There shall be published in the Official Gazette [1] all important legisiative acts and resolutions of a public nature of the, Congress of the Philippines; [2] all executive and administrative orders and proclamations, except such as have no general applicability; [3] decisions or abstracts of decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals as may be deemed by said courts of sufficient importance to be so published; [4] such documents or classes of documents as may be required so to be published by law; and [5] such documents or classes of documents as the President of the Philippines shall determine from time to time to have general applicability and legal effect, or which he may authorize so to be published. ... The clear object of the above-quoted provision is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non excusat." It would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one. Perhaps at no time since the establishment of the Philippine Republic has the publication of laws taken so vital significance that at this time when the people have bestowed upon the President a power heretofore enjoyed solely by the legislature. While the people are kept abreast by the mass media of the debates and deliberations in the Batasan Pambansaand for the diligent ones, ready access to the legislative recordsno such publicity accompanies the lawmaking process of the President. Thus, without publication, the people have no means of knowing what presidential decrees have actually been promulgated, much less a definite way of informing themselves of the specific contents and texts of such decrees. As the Supreme Court of Spain ruled: "Bajo la denominacion generica de leyes, se comprenden tambien los reglamentos, Reales decretos, Instrucciones, Circulares y Reales ordines dictadas de conformidad con las mismas por el Gobierno en uso de su potestad. 5 The very first clause of Section I of Commonwealth Act 638 reads: "There shall be published in the Official Gazette ... ." The word "shall" used therein imposes upon respondent officials an imperative duty. That duty must be enforced if the Constitutional right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern is to be given substance and reality. The law itself makes a list of what should be published in the Official Gazette. Such listing, to our mind, leaves respondents with no discretion whatsoever as to what must be included or excluded from such publication. The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is mandated by law. Obviously, presidential decrees that provide for fines, forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwise impose a burden or. the people, such as tax and revenue measures, fall within this category. Other presidential issuances which apply only to particular persons or class of persons such as administrative and executive orders need not be published on the assumption that they have been circularized to all concerned.

6 It is needless to add that the publication of presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents. As Justice Claudio Teehankee said in Peralta vs. COMELEC 7: In a time of proliferating decrees, orders and letters of instructions which all form part of the law of the land, the requirement of due process and the Rule of Law demand that the Official Gazette as the official government repository promulgate and publish the texts of all such decrees, orders and instructions so that the people may know where to obtain their official and specific contents. The Court therefore declares that presidential issuances of general application, which have not been published, shall have no force and effect. Some members of the Court, quite apprehensive about the possible unsettling effect this decision might have on acts done in reliance of the validity of those presidential decrees which were published only during the pendency of this petition, have put the question as to whether the Court's declaration of invalidity apply to P.D.s which had been enforced or implemented prior to their publication. The answer is all too familiar. In similar situations in the past this Court had taken the pragmatic and realistic course set forth in Chicot County Drainage District vs. Baxter Bank 8 to wit: The courts below have proceeded on the theory that the Act of Congress, having been found to be unconstitutional, was not a law; that it was inoperative, conferring no rights and imposing no duties, and hence affording no basis for the challenged decree. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442; Chicago, 1. & L. Ry. Co. v. Hackett, 228 U.S. 559, 566. It is quite clear, however, that such broad statements as to the effect of a determination of unconstitutionality must be taken with qualifications. The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a determination, is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The effect of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in various aspects-with respect to particular conduct, private and official. Questions of rights claimed to have become vested, of status, of prior determinations deemed to have finality and acted upon accordingly, of public policy in the light of the nature both of the statute and of its previous application, demand examination. These questions are among the most difficult of those which have engaged the attention of courts, state and federal and it is manifest from numerous decisions that an allinclusive statement of a principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified. Consistently with the above principle, this Court in Rutter vs. Esteban 9 sustained the right of a party under the Moratorium Law, albeit said right had accrued in his favor before said law was declared unconstitutional by this Court.

Similarly, the implementation/enforcement of presidential decrees prior to their publication in the Official Gazette is "an operative fact which may have consequences which cannot be justly ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration ... that an all-inclusive statement of a principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified." From the report submitted to the Court by the Clerk of Court, it appears that of the presidential decrees sought by petitioners to be published in the Official Gazette, only Presidential Decrees Nos. 1019 to 1030, inclusive, 1278, and 1937 to 1939, inclusive, have not been so published. 10 Neither the subject matters nor the texts of these PDs can be ascertained since no copies thereof are available. But whatever their subject matter may be, it is undisputed that none of these unpublished PDs has ever been implemented or enforced by the government. In Pesigan vs. Angeles, 11 the Court, through Justice Ramon Aquino, ruled that "publication is necessary to apprise the public of the contents of [penal] regulations and make the said penalties binding on the persons affected thereby. " The cogency of this holding is apparently recognized by respondent officials considering the manifestation in their comment that "the government, as a matter of policy, refrains from prosecuting violations of criminal laws until the same shall have been published in the Official Gazette or in some other publication, even though some criminal laws provide that they shall take effect immediately. WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, and unless so published, they shall have no binding force and effect. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 105364* June 28, 2001 PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK EMPLOYEES UNION-N.U.B.E. and PERFECTO V. FERNANDEZ, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE BENJAMIN VEGA, Presiding Judge of Branch 39 of the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT of Manila, the CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE LIQUIDATOR OF THE PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, respondents KAPUNAN, J.: May a liquidation court continue with liquidation proceedings of the Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB) when Congress had mandated its rehabilitation and reopening? This is the sole issue raised in the instant Petition for Prohibition with Petition for Preliminary Injunction and application for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order. The antecedent facts of the case are as follows: Sometime in 1985, the Central Bank of the Philippines (Central Bank, for brevity) filed with Branch 39 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila a Petition for Assistance in the Liquidation of the Philippine Veterans Bank, the same docketed as Case No. SP-32311. Thereafter, the Philipppine Veterans Bank Employees Union-N.U.B.E., herein petitioner, represented by petitioner Perfecto V. Fernandez, filed claims for accrued and unpaid employee wages and benefits with said court in SP-32311.1 After lengthy proceedings, partial payment of the sums due to the employees were made. However, due to the piecemeal hearings on the benefits, many

remain unpaid.2 On March 8, 1991, petitioners moved to disqualify the respondent judge from hearing the above case on grounds of bias and hostility towards petitioners.3 On January 2, 1992, the Congress enacted Republic Act No. 7169 providing for the rehabilitation of the Philippine Veterans Bank.4 Thereafter, petitioners filed with the labor tribunals their residual claims for benefits and for reinstatement upon reopening of the bank.5 Sometime in May 1992, the Central Bank issued a certificate of authority allowing the PVB to reopen.6 Despite the legislative mandate for rehabilitation and reopening of PVB, respondent judge continued with the liquidation proceedings of the bank. Moreover, petitioners learned that respondents were set to order the payment and release of employee benefits upon motion of another lawyer, while petitioners claims have been frozen to their prejudice. Hence, the instant petition. Petitioners argue that with the passage of R.A. 7169, the liquidation court became functus officio, and no longer had the authority to continue with liquidation proceedings. In a Resolution, dated June 8, 1992, the Supreme Court resolved to issue a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the trial court from further proceeding with the case. On June 22, 1992, VOP Security & Detective Agency (VOPSDA) and its 162 security guards filed a Motion for Intervention with prayer that they be excluded from the operation of the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court. They alleged that they had filed a motion before Branch 39 of the RTC of Manila, in SP-No. 32311, praying that said court order PVB to pay their backwages and salary differentials by authority of R.A. No 6727, Wage Orders No. NCR-01 and NCR-01-Ad and Wage Orders No. NCR-02 and NCR-02-A; and, that said court, in an Order dated June 5, 1992, approved therein movants case and directed the bank liquidator or PVB itself to pay the backwages and differentials in accordance with the computation incorporated in the order. Said intervenors likewise manifested that there was an error in the computation of the monetary benefits due them. On August 18, 1992, petitioners, pursuant to the Resolution of this Court, dated July 6, 1992, filed their Comment opposing the Motion for Leave to File Intervention and for exclusion from the operation of the T.R.O. on the grounds that the movants have no legal interest in the subject matter of the pending action; that allowing intervention would only cause delay in the proceedings; and that the motion to exclude the movants from the T.R.O. is without legal basis and would render moot the relief sought in the petition. On September 3, 1992, the PVB filed a Petition-In-Intervention praying for the issuance of the writs of certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court in connection with the issuance by respondent judge of several orders involving acts of liquidation of PVB even after the effectivity of R.A. No. 7169.

PVB further alleges that respondent judge clearly acted in excess of or without jurisdiction when he issued the questioned orders. We find for the petitioners. Republic Act No. 7169 entitled "An Act To Rehabilitate The Philippine Veterans Bank Created Under Republic Act No. 3518, Providing The Mechanisms Therefor, And For Other Purposes", which was signed into law by President Corazon C. Aquino on January 2, 1992 and which was published in the Official Gazette on February 24, 1992, provides in part for the reopening of the Philippine Veterans Bank together with all its branches within the period of three (3) years from the date of the reopening of the head office.7 The law likewise provides for the creation of a rehabilitation committee in order to facilitate the implementation of the provisions of the same.8 Pursuant to said R.A. No. 7169, the Rehabilitation Committee submitted the proposed Rehabilitation Plan of the PVB to the Monetary Board for its approval. Meanwhile, PVB filed a Motion to Terminate Liquidation of Philippine Veterans Bank dated March 13, 1992 with the respondent judge praying that the liquidation proceedings be immediately terminated in view of the passage of R.A. No. 7169. On April 10, 1992, the Monetary Board issued Monetary Board Resolution No. 348 which approved the Rehabilitation Plan submitted by the Rehabilitaion Committee. Thereafter, the Monetary Board issued a Certificate of Authority allowing PVB to reopen. On June 3, 1992, the liquidator filed A Motion for the Termination of the Liquidation Proceedings of the Philippine Veterans Bank with the respondent judge. As stated above, the Court, in a Resolution dated June 8, 1992, issued a temporary restraining order in the instant case restraining respondent judge from further proceeding with the liquidation of PVB. On August 3, 1992, the Philippine Veterans Bank opened its doors to the public and started regular banking operations. Clearly, the enactment of Republic Act No. 7169, as well as the subsequent developments has rendered the liquidation court functus officio. Consequently, respondent judge has been stripped of the authority to issue orders involving acts of liquidation. Liquidation, in corporation law, connotes a winding up or settling with creditors and debtors.9 It is the winding up of a corporation so that assets are distributed to those entitled to receive them. It is the process of reducing assets to cash, discharging liabilities and dividing surplus or loss.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is rehabilitation which connotes a reopening or reorganization. Rehabilitation contemplates a continuance of corporate life and activities in an effort to restore and reinstate the corporation to its former position of successful operation and solvency.10 It is crystal clear that the concept of liquidation is diametrically opposed or contrary to the concept of rehabilitation, such that both cannot be undertaken at the same time. To allow the liquidation proceedings to continue would seriously hinder the rehabilitation of the subject bank. Anent the claim of respondents Central Bank and Liquidator of PVB that R.A. No. 7169 became effective only on March 10, 1992 or fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette; and, the contention of intervenors VOP Security, et. al. that the effectivity of said law is conditioned on the approval of a rehabilitation plan by the Monetary Board, among others, the Court is of the view that both contentions are bereft of merit. While as a rule, laws take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, the legislature has the authority to provide for exceptions, as indicated in the clause "unless otherwise provided." In the case at bar, Section 10 of R.A. No. 7169 provides: Sec. 10. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect upon its approval. Hence, it is clear that the legislature intended to make the law effective immediately upon its approval. It is undisputed that R.A. No. 7169 was signed into law by President Corazon C. Aquino on January 2, 1992. Therefore, said law became effective on said date. Assuming for the sake of argument that publication is necessary for the effectivity of R.A. No. 7169, then it became legally effective on February 24, 1992, the date when the same was published in the Official Gazette, and not on March 10, 1992, as erroneously claimed by respondents Central Bank and Liquidator. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE and GRANTED. Respondent Judge is hereby PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from further proceeding with Civil Case No. SP- 32311. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 108461 October 21, 1996 PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. PRESIDING JUDGE ZOSIMO Z. ANGELES, BRANCH 58, RTC, MAKATI; REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION; AND FIRESTONE CERAMIC, INC., respondents. TORRES, JR., J.:p The PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION (PITC, for brevity) filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari, seeking the reversal of the Decision dated January 4, 1993 of public respondent Hon. Zosimo Z. Angeles, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 58, in Civil Case No. 92-158 entitled Remington Industrial Sales Corporation, et. al. vs. Philippine Industrial Trading Corporation.

The said decision upheld the Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus of REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION (Remington, for brevity) and FIRESTONE CERAMICS, INC. (Firestone, for brevity), and, in the process, declared as null and void and unconstitutional, PITC's Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 and its appurtenant regulations. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of Petitioner and Intervenor and against the Respondent, as follows: 1) Enjoining the further implementation by the respondent of the following issuances relative to the applications for importation of products from the People's Republic of China, to wit: a) Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 dated August 30, 1989 (Annex A, Amended Petition); b) Prescribed Export Undertaking Form (Annex B, Id.);

c) Prescribed Importer-Exporter Agreement Form for non-exporter-importer (Annex C, Id.); d) Memorandum dated April 16, 1990 relative to amendments of Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 (Annex D, Id.); e) Memorandum dated May 6, 1991 relative to Revised Schedule of Fees for the processing of import applications (Annexes E, E-1., Ind.); f) Rules and Regulations relative to liquidation of unfulfilled Undertakings and expired export credits (Annex Z, Supplemental Petition), the foregoing being all null and void and unconstitutional; and, 2) Commanding respondent to approve forthwith all the pending applications of, and all those that may hereafter be filed by, the petitioner and the Intervenor, free from and without the requirements prescribed in the above-mentioned issuances. IT IS SO ORDERED. The controversy springs from the issuance by the PITC of Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01, 1 under which, applications to the PITC for importation from the People's Republic of China (PROC, for brevity) must be accompanied by a viable and confirmed Export Program of Philippine Products to PROC carried out by the improper himself or through a tie-up with a legitimate importer in an amount equivalent to the value of the importation from PROC being applied for, or, simply, at one is to one ratio. Pertinent provisions of the questioned administrative order read: 3. COUNTERPART EXPORTS TO PROC

In addition to existing requirements for the processing of import application for goods and commodities originating from PROC, it is declared that: 3.1 All applications covered by these rules must be accompanied by a viable and confirmed EXPORT PROGRAM of Philippine products to PROC in an amount equivalent to the value of the importation from PROC being applied for. Such export program must be carried out and completed within six (6) months from date of approval of the Import Application by PITC. PITC shall reject/deny any application for importation from PROC without the accompanying export program mentioned above. 3.2 The EXPORT PROGRAM may be carried out by any of the following:

a. By the IMPORTER himself if he has the capabilities and facilities to carry out the export of Philippine products to PROC in his own name; or b. Through a tie-up between the IMPORTER and a legitimate exporter (of Philippine products) who is willing to carry out the export commitments of the IMPORTER under these rules. The tie-up shall not make the IMPORTER the exporter of the goods but shall merely ensure that the importation sought to be approved is matched one-to-one (1:1) in value with a corresponding export of Philippine products to PROC. 2 3.3 EXPORT PROGRAM DOCUMENTS which are to be submitted by the improper together with his Import Application are as follows: a) b) Firm Contract, Sales Invoice or Letter of Credit. Export Performance Guarantee (See Article 4 hereof).

c) IMPORTER-EXPORTER AGREEMENT for non-exporter IMPORTER (PITC Form No. M-1006). This form should be used if IMPORTER has tie-up with an exporter for the export of Philippine Products to PROC. 4. EXPORT GUARANTEE

To ensure that the export commitments of the IMPORTER are carried out in accordance with these rules, all IMPORTERS concerned are required to submit an EXPORT PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE (the "Guarantee") at the time of filing of the Import Application. The amount of the guarantee shall be as follows: For essential commodities: 15% of the value of the imports applied for. For other commodities: 50% of the value of the imports applied for. 4.1 The guarantee may be in the form of (i) a non-interest bearing cash deposit; (ii) Bank hold-out in favor of PITC (PITC Form No. M-1007) or (iii) a Domestic Letter of Credit (with all bank opening charges for account of Importer) opened in favor of PITC as beneficiary.

4.2 The guarantee shall be made in favor of PITC and will be automatically forfeited in favor of PITC, fully or partially, if the required export program is not completed by the importer within six (6) months from date of approval of the Import Application. 4.3 Within the six (6) months period above stated, the IMPORTER is entitled to a (i) refund of the cash deposited without interest; (ii) cancellation of the Bank holdout or (iii) Cancellation of the Domestic Letter of Credit upon showing that he has completed the export commitment pertaining to his importation and provided further that the following documents are submitted to PITC: a) b) c) d) 5. Final Sales Invoice Bill of lading or Airway bill Bank Certificate of Inward Remittance PITC EXPORT APPLICATION FOR NO. M-1005 MISCELLANEOUS

5.1 All other requirements for importations of goods and commodities from PROC must be complied with in addition to the above. 5.2 PITC shall have the right to disapprove any and all import applications not in accordance with the rules and regulations herein prescribed. 5.3 Should the IMPORTER or any of his duly authorized representatives make any false statements or fraudulent misrepresentations in the Import/Export Application, or falsify, forge or simulate any document required under these rules and regulations, PITC is authorized to reject all pending and future import/export applications of said IMPORTER and/or disqualify said IMPORTER from doing any business with SOCPEC through PITC. Desiring to make importations from PROC, private respondents Remington and Firestone, both domestic corporations, organized and existing under Philippine laws, individually applied for authority to import from PROC with the petitioner. They were granted such authority after satisfying the requirements for importers, and after they executed respective undertakings to balance their importations from PROC with corresponding export of Philippine products to PROC. Private respondent Remington was allowed to import tools, machineries and other similar goods. Firestone, on the other hand, imported Calcine Vauxite, which it used for the manufacture of fire bricks, one of its products. Subsequently, for failing to comply with their undertakings to submit export credits equivalent to the value of their importations, further import applications were withheld by petitioner PITC from private respondents, such that the latter were both barred from importing goods from PROC. 3 Consequently, Remington filed a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus, with prayer for issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary

Injunction on January 20, 1992, against PITC in the RTC Makati Branch 58. 4 The court issued a Temporary Restraining Order on January 21, 1992, ordering PITC to cease from exercising any power to process applications of goods from PROC. 5 Hearing on the application for writ of preliminary injunction ensued. Private respondent Firstone was allowed to intervene in the petition on July 2, 1992, 6 thus joining Remington in the latter's charges against PITC. It specifically asserts that the questioned Administrative Order is an undue restriction of trade, and hence, unconstitutional. Upon trial, it was agreed that the evidence adduced upon the hearing on the Preliminary Injunction was sufficient to completely adjudicate the case, thus, the parties deemed it proper that the entire case be submitted for decision upon the evidence so far presented. The court rendered its Decision 7 on January 4, 1992. The court ruled that PITC's authority to process and approve applications for imports from SOCPEC and to issue rules and regulations pursuant to LOI 444 and P.D. No. 1071, has already been repealed by EO No. 133, issued on February 27, 1987 by President Aquino. The court observed: Given such obliteration and/or withdrawal of what used to be PITC's regulatory authority under the Special provisions embodied in LOI 444 from the enumeration of power that it could exercise effective February 27, 1987 in virtue of Section 16 (d), EO No. 133, it may now be successfully argued that the PITC can no longer exercise such specific regulatory power in question conformably with the legal precept "expresio unius est exclusio alterius." Moreover, the court continued, none of the Trade protocols of 1989, 1990 or 1991, has empowered the PITC, expressly or impliedly to formulate or promulgate the assailed Administrative Order. This fact, makes the continued exercise by PITC of the regulatory powers in question unworthy of judicial approval. Otherwise, it would be sanctioning an undue exercise of legislative power vested solely in the Congress of the Philippines by Section, 1, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The lower court stated that the subject Administrative Order and other similar issuances by PITC suffer from serious constitutional infirmity, having been promulgated in pursuance of an international agreement (the Memorandum of Agreement between the Philippines and PROC), which has not been concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the members of the Philippine Senate as required by Article VII, Section 21, of the 1987 Constitution, and therefore, null and void. Sec. 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. Furthermore, the subject Administrative Order was issued in restraint of trade, in violation of Sections 1 and 19, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, which

reads: Sec. 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and, an expanding productivity as the key to raising the equality of life for all, especially the underprivileged. Sec. 19. The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the public interest so requires. No combination in restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be allowed. Lastly, the court declared the Administrative Order to be null and void, since the same was not published, contrary to Article 2 of the New Civil Code which provides, that: Art. 2. Laws shall take effect fifteen (15) days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless the law otherwise provides. . . . Petitioner now comes to use on a Petition for Review on Certiorari, 8 questioning the court's decision particularly on the propriety of the lower court's declarations on the validity of Administrative Order No. 89-08-01. The Court directed the respondents to file their respective Comments. Subsequent events transpired, however, which affect to some extent, the submissions of the parties to the present petition. Following President Fidel V. Ramos' trip to Beijing, People's Republic of China (PROC), from April 25 to 30, 1993, a new trade agreement was entered into between the Philippines and PROC, encouraging liberalization of trade between the two countries. In line therewith, on April 20, 1993, the President, through Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Antonio T. Carpio, directed the Department of Trade and Industry and the PITC to cease implementing Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01, as amended by PITC Board Resolution Nos. 92-01-05 and 92-03-08. 9 In the implementation of such order, PITC President Jose Luis U. Yulo, Jr. issued a corporate Memorandum 10 instructing that all import applications for the PROC filed with the PITC as of April 20, 1993 shall no longer be covered by the trade balancing program outlined in the Administrative Order. Forthwith, the PITC allowed the private respondents to import anew from the PROC, without being required to comply anymore with the lifted requirement of balancing its imports with exports of Philippine products to PROC. 11 In its Constancia 12 filed with the Court on November 22, 1993, Remington expressed its desire to have the present action declared moot and academic considering the new supervening developments. For its part, respondent Firestone made a Manifestation 13 in lieu of its Memorandum, informing the court of the aforesaid developments of the new trade program of the Philippines with China, and prayed for the court's early resolution of the action.

To support its submission that the present action is now moot and academic, respondent Remington cites Executive Order No. 244, 14 issued by President Ramos on May 12, 1995. The Executive Order states: WHEREAS, continued coverage of the People's Republic of China by Letter of Instructions No. 444 is no longer consistent with the country's national interest, as coursing Republic of the Philippines-People's Republic China Trade through the Philippine International Trading Corporations as provided for under Letter of Instructions No. 444 is becoming an unnecessary barrier to trade; NOW, THEREFORE, I, FIDEL V. RAMOS, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby order; The Committee on Scientific and Technical Cooperation with Socialist Countries to delete the People's Republic of China from the list of countries covered by Letter of Instructions No. 444. Done in the City of Manila, this 12th day of May in the year of Our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and Ninety-Five. PITC filed its own Manifestation 15 on December 15, 1993, wherein it adopted the arguments raised in its Petition as its Memorandum. PITC disagrees with Remington on the latter's submission that the case has become moot and academic as a result of the abrogation of Administrative Order SOCPEC No. 8908-01, since respondent Remington had incurred obligations to the petitioner consisting of charges for the 0.5% Counter Export Development Service provided by PITC to Remington, which obligations remain outstanding. 16 The propriety of such charges must still be resolved, petitioner argues, thereby maintaining the issue of the validity of SOCPEC Order No. 89-08-01, before it was abrogated by Executive fiat. There is no question that from April 20, 1993, when trading balancing measures with PROC were lifted by the President, Administrative Order SOCPEC No. 89-08-01 no longer has force and effect, and respondents are thus entitled anew to apply for authority to import from the PROC, without the trade balancing requirements previously imposed on proposed importers. Indeed, it appears that since the lifting of the trade balancing measures, Remington had been allowed to import anew from PROC. There remains, however, the matter of the outstanding obligations of the respondent for the charges relating to the 0.5% Counter Export Development Service in favor of PITC, for the period when the questioned Administrative Order remained in effect. Is the obligation still subsisting, or are the respondents freed from it? To resolve this issue, we are tasked to consider the constitutionality of Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01, based on the arguments set up by the parties in their Petition and Comment. In so doing, we must inquire into the nature of the functions of the PITC, in the light of present realities.

The PITC is a government owned or controlled corporation created under P.D. No. 252 17 dated August 6, 1973. P.D. No. 1071, 18 issued on May 9, 1977 which revised the provisions of P.D. 252. The purposes and powers of the said governmental entity were enumerated under Section 5 and 6 thereof. 19 On August 9, 1976, the late President Ferdinand Marcos issued Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 444, 20 directing, inter alia, that trade (export or import of all commodities), whether direct or indirect, between the Philippines and any of the Socialist and other Centrally Planned Economy Countries (SOCPEC), including the People's Republic of China (PROC) shall be undertaken or coursed through the PITC. Under the LOI, PITC was mandated to: 1) participate in all official trade and economic discussions between the Philippines and SOCPEC; 2) adopt such measures and issue such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the effective discharge of its functions under its instructions; and, 3) undertake the processing and approval of all applications for export to or import from the SOCPEC. Pertinent provisions of the Letter of Instruction are herein reproduced: LETTER OF INSTRUCTION 444 xxx II. xxx xxx

CHANNELS OF TRADE

1. The trade, direct or indirect, between the Philippines and any of the Socialist and other centrally-planned economy countries shall upon issuance hereof, be undertaken by or coursed through the Philippine International Trading Corporation. This shall apply to the export and import of all commodities of products including those specified for export or import by expressly authorized government agencies. xxx xxx xxx

4. The Philippine International Trading Corporation shall participate in all official trade and economic discussions between the Philippines and other centrally-planned economy countries. xxx V. xxx xxx

SPECIAL PROVISIONS

The Philippine International Trading Corporation shall adopt such measures and issue such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the effective discharge of its functions under these instructions. In this connection, the processing and approval of applications for export to or import from the Socialist and other centrally-planned economy countries shall, henceforth, be performed by the said Corporation. (Emphasis ours)

After the EDSA Revolution, or more specifically on February 27, 1987, then President Corazon C. Aquino promulgated Executive Order (EO) No. 133 21 reorganizing the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) empowering the said department to be the "primary coordinative, promotive, facilitative and regulatory arm of the government for the country's trade, industry and investment activities" (Sec. 2, EO 133). The PITC was made one of DTI's line agencies. 22 The Executive Order reads in part: EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 133 xxx xxx xxx Line Corporate Agencies and Government Entities.

Sec. 16.

The following line corporate agencies and government entities defined in Section 9 (c) of this Executive Order that will perform their specific regulatory functions, particularly developmental responsibilities and specialized business activities in a manner consonant with the Department mandate, objectives, policies, plans and programs: xxx xxx xxx

d) Philippine International Trading Corporation. This corporation, which shall be supervised by the Undersecretary for International Trade, shall only engage in both export and trading on new or non-traditional products and markets not normally pursued by the private business sector; provide a wide range of export oriented auxiliary services to the private sector; arrange for or establish comprehensive system and physical facilities for handling the collection, processing, and distribution of cargoes and other commodities; monitor or coordinate risk insurance services for existing institutions; promote and organize, whenever warranted, production enterprises and industrial establishments and collaborate or associate in joint venture with any person, association, company or entity, whether domestic or foreign, in the fields of production, marketing, procurement, and other relate businesses; and provide technical advisory, investigatory, consultancy and management services with respect to any and all of the functions, activities, and operations of the corporation. Sometime in April, 1988, following the State visit of President Aquino to the PROC, the Philippines and PROC entered into a Memorandum of Understanding 23 (MOU) wherein the two countries agreed to make joint efforts within the next five years to expand bilateral trade to US $600 US $800 Million by 1992, and to strive for a steady progress towards achieving a balance between the value of their imports and exports during the period, agreeing for the purpose that upon the signing of the Memorandum, both sides shall undertake to establish the necessary steps and procedures to be adopted within the framework of the annual midyear review meeting under the Trade Protocol, in order to monitor and ensure the implementation of the MOU.

Conformably with the MOU, the Philippines and PROC entered into a Trade Protocol for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991, 24 under which was specified the commodities to be traded between them. The protocols affirmed their agreement to jointly endeavor between them. The protocols affirmed their agreement to jointly endeavor to achieve more or less a balance between the values of their imports and exports in their bilateral trade. It is allegedly in line with its powers under LOI 444 and in keeping with the MOU and Trade Protocols with PROC that PITC issued its now assailed Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 25 on August 30, 1989 (amended in March, 1992). Undoubtedly, President Aquino, in issuing EO 133, is empowered to modify and amend the provisions of LOI 444, which was issued by then President Marcos, both issuances being executive directives. As observed by us in Philippine Association of Services Exporters, Inc. vs. Torres, 26 there is no need for legislative delegation of power to the President to revoke the Letter of Instruction by way of an Executive Order. This is notwithstanding the fact that the subject LOI 1190 was issued by President Marcos, when he was extraordinarily empowered to exercise legislative powers, whereas EO 450 was issued by Pres. Aquino when her transitional legislative powers have already ceased, since it was found that LOI 1190 was a mere administrative directive, hence, may be repealed, altered, or modified by EO 450. We do not agree, however, with the trial court's ruling PITC's authority to issue rules and regulations pursuant to the Special Provision of LOI 444 and P.D. No. 1071, have already been repealed by EO 133. While PITC's power to engage in commercial import and export activities is expressly recognized and allowed under Section 16 (d) of EO 133, the same is not limited only to new or non-traditional products and markets not normally pursued by the private business sector. There is not indication in the law of the removal of the powers of the PITC to exercise its regulatory functions in the area of importations from SOCPEC countries. Though it does not mention the grant of regulatory power, EO 133, as worded, is silent as to the abolition or limitation of such powers, previously granted under P.D. 1071, from the PITC. Likewise, the general repealing clause in EO 133 stating that "all laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations, or other parts thereof, which are inconsistent with the Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly, cannot operate to abolish the grant of regulatory powers to the PITC. There can be no repeal of the said powers, absent any cogency of irreconcilable inconsistency or repugnancy between the issuances, relating to the regulatory power of the PITC. The President, in promulgating EO 133, had not intended to overhaul the functions of the PITC. The DTI was established, and was given powers and duties including those previously held by the PITC as an independent

government entity, under P.D. 1071 and LOI 444. The PITC was thereby attached to the DTI as an implementing arm of the said department. EO 133 established the DTI as the primary coordinative, promotive, facilitative and regulatory arm of government for the country's trade, industry and investment activities, which shall act as a catalyst for intensified private sector activity in order to accelerate and sustain economic growth. 27 In furtherance of this mandate, the DTI was empowered, among others, to plan, implement, and coordinate activities of the government related to trade industry and investments; to formulate and administer policies and guidelines for the investment priorities plan and the delivery of investment incentives; to formulate country and product export strategies which will guide the export promotion and development thrusts of the government. 28 Corollarily, the Secretary of Trade and Industry is given the power to promulgate rules and regulations necessary to carry out the department's objectives, policies, plans, programs and projects. The PITC, on the other hand, was attached as an integral part to the said department as one of its line agencies, 29 and given the focal task of implementing the department's programs. 30 The absence of the regulatory power formerly enshrined in the Special Provision of LOI 444, from Section 16 of EO 133, and the limitation of its previously wide range of functions, is noted. This does not mean, however, that PITC has lost the authority to issue the questioned Administrative Order. It is our view that PITC still holds such authority, and may legally exercise it, as an implementing arm, and under the supervision of, the Department of Trade and Industry. Furthermore, the lower court's ruling to the effect that the PITC's authority to process and approve applications for imports from SOCPEC and to issue rules and regulations pursuant to LOI 444 and P.D. 1071 has been repealed by EO 133, is misplaced, and did not consider the import behind the issuance of the later presidential edict. The President could not have intended to deprive herself of the power to regulate the flow of trade between the Philippines and PROC under the two countries' Memorandum of Understanding, a power which necessarily flows from her office as Chief Executive. In issuing Executive Order 133, the President intended merely to reorganize the Department of Trade and Industry to cope with the need of a streamlined bureaucracy. 31 Thus, there is not real inconsistency between LOI 444 and EO 133. There is, admittedly, a rearranging of the administrative functions among the administrative bodies affective by the edict, but not an abolition of executive power. Consistency in statutes as in executive issuances, is of prime importance, and, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, all laws are presumed to be consistent with each other. Where it is possible to do so, it is the duty of courts, in the construction of statutes, to harmonize and reconcile them, and to adopt a construction of a statutory provision which harmonizes and reconciles it with other statutory provisions. 32 The fact that a later enactment may relate to the same subject matter as that of an earlier statute

is not of itself sufficient to cause an implied repeal of the latter, since the law may be cumulative or a continuation of the old one. 33 Similarly, the grant of quasi-legislative powers in administrative bodies is not unconstitutional. Thus, as a result of the growing complexity of the modern society, it has become necessary to create more and more administrative bodies to help in the regulation of its ramified activities. Specialized in the particular field assigned to them, they can deal within the problems thereof with more expertise and dispatch than can be expected from the legislature or the courts of justice. This is the reason for the increasing vesture of quasilegislative and quasi-judicial powers in what is now not unreasonably called the fourth department of the government. 34 Evidently, in the exercise of such powers, the agency concerned must commonly interpret and apply contracts and determine the rights of private parties under such contracts. One thrust of the multiplication of administrative agencies is that the interpretation of contracts and the determination of private rights thereunder is no longer uniquely judicial function, exercisable only by our regular courts. (Antipolo Realty Corporation vs. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. L-50444, August 31, 1987, 153 SCRA 399). With global trade and business becoming more intricate may even with new discoveries in technology and electronics notwithstanding, the time has come to grapple with legislations and even judicial decisions aimed at resolving issues affecting not only individual rights but also activities of which foreign governments or entities may have interests. Thus, administrative policies and regulations must be devised to suit these changing business needs in a faster rate than to resort to traditional acts of the legislature. This tendency finds support in a well-stated work on the subject, viz.: Since legislatures had neither the time nor the knowledge to create detailed rules, however, it was soon clear that new governmental arrangements would be needed to handle the job of rule-making. The courts, moreover, many of them already congested, would have been swamped if they had to adjudicate all the controversies that the new legislation was bound to create; and the judges, already obliged to handle a great diversity of cases, would have been hard pressed to acquire the knowledge they needed to deal intelligently with all the new types of controversy. So the need to "create a large number of specialized administrative agencies and to give them broader powers than administrators had traditionally exercised. These included the power to issue regulations having the force of law, and the power to hear and decide cases powers that had previously been reserved to the legislatures and the courts. (Houghteling/Pierce, Lawmaking by Administrative Agencies, p. 166) The respondents likewise argue that PITC is not empowered to issue the Administrative Order because no grant of such power was made under the Trade Protocols of 1989, 1990 or 1991. We do not agree. The Trade Protocols aforesaid, are only the enumeration of the products and goods which signatory

countries have agreed to trade. They do not bestow any regulatory power, for executive power is vested in the Executive Department, 35 and it is for the latter to delegate the exercise of such power among its designated agencies. In sum, the PITC was legally empowered to issue Administrative Orders, as a valid exercise of a power ancillary to legislation. This does not imply however, that the subject Administrative Order is a valid exercise of such quasi-legislative power. The original Administrative Order issued on August 30, 1989, under which the respondents filed their applications for importation, was not published in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation. The questioned Administrative Order, legally, until it is published, is invalid within the context of Article 2 of Civil Code, which reads: Art. 2. Laws shall take effect fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette (or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines), unless it is otherwise provided. . . . The fact that the amendments to Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 were filed with, and published by the UP Law Center in the National Administrative Register, does not cure the defect related to the effectivity of the Administrative Order. This court, in Tanada vs. Tuvera 36 stated, thus: We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity is fixed by the legislature. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution. Administrative Rules and Regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation. Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published. Neither is publication required of the so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties xxx xxx xxx

We agree that the publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws. The Administrative Order under consideration is one of those issuances which

should be published for its effectivity, since its purpose is to enforce and implement an existing law pursuant to a valid delegation, i.e., P.D. 1071, in relation to LOI 444 and EO 133. Thus, even before the trade balancing measures issued by the petitioner were lifted by President Fidel V. Ramos, the same were never legally effective, and private respondents, therefore, cannot be made subject to them, because Administrative Order 89-08-01 embodying the same was never published, as mandated by law, for its effectivity. It was only on March 30, 1992 when the amendments to the said Administrative Order were filed in the UP Law Center, and published in the National Administrative Register as required by the Administrative Code of 1987. Finally, it is the declared Policy of the Government to develop and strengthen trade relations with the People's Republic of China. As declared by the President in EO 244 issued on May 12, 1995, continued coverage of the People's Republic of China by Letter of Instructions No. 444 is no longer consistent with the country's national interest, as coursing RP-PROC trade through the PITC as provided for under Letter of Instructions No. 444 is becoming an unnecessary barrier to trade. 37 Conformably with such avowed policy, any remnant of the restrained atmosphere of trading between the Philippines and PROC should be done away with, so as to allow economic growth and renewed trade relations with our neighbors to flourish and may be encouraged. ACCORDINGLY, the assailed decision of the lower court is hereby AFFIRMED, to the effect that judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the private respondents, subject to the following MODIFICATIONS: 1) Enjoining the petitioner: a) From further charging the petitioners the Counter Export Development Service fee of 0.5% of the total value of the unliquidated or unfulfilled Undertakings of the private respondents; b) From further implementing the provisions of Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 and its appurtenant rules; and, 2) Requiring petitioner to approve forthwith all the pending applications of, and all those that may hereafter be filed by, the petitioner and the Intervenor, free from and without complying with the requirements prescribed in the above-stated issuances. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 80718 January 29, 1988 FELIZA P. DE ROY and VIRGILIO RAMOS, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LUIS BERNAL, SR., GLENIA BERNAL, LUIS BERNAL, JR., HEIRS OF MARISSA BERNAL, namely, GLICERIA DELA CRUZ BERNAL and LUIS BERNAL, SR., respondents. RESOLUTION CORTES, J.:

This special civil action for certiorari seeks to declare null and void two (2) resolutions of the Special First Division of the Court of Appeals in the case of Luis Bernal, Sr., et al. v. Felisa Perdosa De Roy, et al., CA-G.R. CV No. 07286. The first resolution promulgated on 30 September 1987 denied petitioners' motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration and directed entry of judgment since the decision in said case had become final; and the second Resolution dated 27 October 1987 denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for having been filed out of time. At the outset, this Court could have denied the petition outright for not being verified as required by Rule 65 section 1 of the Rules of Court. However, even if the instant petition did not suffer from this defect, this Court, on procedural and substantive grounds, would still resolve to deny it. The facts of the case are undisputed. The firewall of a burned-out building owned by petitioners collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop occupied by the family of private respondents, resulting in injuries to private respondents and the death of Marissa Bernal, a daughter. Private respondents had been warned by petitioners to vacate their shop in view of its proximity to the weakened wall but the former failed to do so. On the basis of the foregoing facts, the Regional Trial Court. First Judicial Region, Branch XXXVIII, presided by the Hon. Antonio M. Belen, rendered judgment finding petitioners guilty of gross negligence and awarding damages to private respondents. On appeal, the decision of the trial court was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals in a decision promulgated on August 17, 1987, a copy of which was received by petitioners on August 25, 1987. On September 9, 1987, the last day of the fifteen-day period to file an appeal, petitioners filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, which was eventually denied by the appellate court in the Resolution of September 30, 1987. Petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration on September 24, 1987 but this was denied in the Resolution of October 27, 1987. This Court finds that the Court of Appeals did not commit a grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioners' motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, directed entry of judgment and denied their motion for reconsideration. It correctly applied the rule laid down in Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japzon, [G.R. No. 70895, August 5, 1985,138 SCRA 461, that the fifteen-day period for appealing or for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be extended. In its Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, promulgated on July 30, 1986 (142 SCRA 208), this Court en banc restated and clarified the rule, to wit: Beginning one month after the promulgation of this Resolution, the rule shall be strictly enforced that no motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and the Intermediate Appellate Court. Such a motion may be filed only in cases pending with the Supreme Court as the court of last resort, which may in its sound discretion either grant or deny the extension requested. (at p. 212)

Lacsamana v. Second Special Cases Division of the intermediate Appellate Court, [G.R. No. 73146-53, August 26, 1986, 143 SCRA 643], reiterated the rule and went further to restate and clarify the modes and periods of appeal. Bacaya v. Intermediate Appellate Court, [G.R. No. 74824, Sept. 15, 1986,144 SCRA 161],stressed the prospective application of said rule, and explained the operation of the grace period, to wit: In other words, there is a one-month grace period from the promulgation on May 30, 1986 of the Court's Resolution in the clarificatory Habaluyas case, or up to June 30, 1986, within which the rule barring extensions of time to file motions for new trial or reconsideration is, as yet, not strictly enforceable. Since petitioners herein filed their motion for extension on February 27, 1986, it is still within the grace period, which expired on June 30, 1986, and may still be allowed. This grace period was also applied in Mission v. Intermediate Appellate Court [G.R. No. 73669, October 28, 1986, 145 SCRA 306].] In the instant case, however, petitioners' motion for extension of time was filed on September 9, 1987, more than a year after the expiration of the grace period on June 30, 1986. Hence, it is no longer within the coverage of the grace period. Considering the length of time from the expiration of the grace period to the promulgation of the decision of the Court of Appeals on August 25, 1987, petitioners cannot seek refuge in the ignorance of their counsel regarding said rule for their failure to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period. Petitioners contend that the rule enunciated in the Habaluyas case should not be made to apply to the case at bar owing to the non-publication of the Habaluyas decision in the Official Gazette as of the time the subject decision of the Court of Appeals was promulgated. Contrary to petitioners' view, there is no law requiring the publication of Supreme Court decisions in the Official Gazette before they can be binding and as a condition to their becoming effective. It is the bounden duty of counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of decisions of the Supreme Court particularly where issues have been clarified, consistently reiterated, and published in the advance reports of Supreme Court decisions (G. R. s) and in such publications as the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) and law journals. This Court likewise finds that the Court of Appeals committed no grave abuse of discretion in affirming the trial court's decision holding petitioner liable under Article 2190 of the Civil Code, which provides that "the proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damage resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs. Nor was there error in rejecting petitioners argument that private respondents had the "last clear chance" to avoid the accident if only they heeded the. warning to vacate the tailoring shop and , therefore, petitioners prior negligence should be disregarded, since the doctrine of "last clear chance," which has been applied to vehicular accidents, is inapplicable to this case.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court Resolved to DENY the instant petition for lack of merit. G.R. No. L-65894 September 24, 1987 THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF CORON, PALAWAN, duly represented by MAYOR RICARDO F. LIM, petitioner, vs. JOSE CARINO, VICTORIANO DACULLA, BEN GUMASING, LUCENA CRUZ, HILARIA YALON, PEPITO YAMBAO, RIC GACUTAN, ANDRES DACULLA, FELICISIMA URSAIS, PASTOR JOSOL, TEDDY ACTANG, CANDIDA MANALO, LETICIA RAMAL, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES PORFIRIO V. SISON, ABDULWAHID A. BIDIN, MARCELINO R. VELOSO and DESIDERIO P. JURADO, respondents. GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: The second paragraph of Section 39, Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 provides that: No record on appeal shall be required to take an appeal. In lieu thereof, the entire original record shall be transmitted with all the pages prominently numbered consecutively, together with an index of the contents thereof. Likewise, Sections 18 and 19(b) of the Interim Rules of Court promulgated on January 11, 1983 provide that: Sec. 18. The filing of a record on appeal shall be dispensed with, except in the cases referred to in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (1) hereof. No appeal bond shall be required for an appeal. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 19 (b) In appeals in special proceedings in accordance with Rule 109 of the Rules of Court and other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed, the period of appeal shall be thirty (30) days, a record of appeal being required. Whether or not the above provisions are applicable to the case at bar is the lone issue in this petition which assails the resolution of the respondent appellate court dated July 29, 1983. The dispositive part of the questioned resolution reads: WHEREFORE, notwithstanding the foregoing, in the broader interest of justice and considering that under the present Interim Rules a record on appeal is no longer necessary for taking an appeal, the Court resolved to order the recall of the records of this case from the Regional Trial Court of Palawan Branch I, Puerto Princess for further proceedings before this Court. (Rollo, pp. 12-13) Following are the pertinent facts of the case as culled from the records. Sometime in 1976, an action was filed by the petitioner before the Court of First Instance of Palawan and Puerto Princess City, Branch IV where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 35. The action sought authority from the court to demolish the structures built by the private respondents alongside the rock causeway of the petitioner's wharf. The complaint alleged, among others: that the defendants' houses were constructed more than 3 years before the

filing of instant action (par. 2, Complaint),: that on August 19, 1974 the herein defendants undertook to remove their structures on space where they were then at that time and are presently standing, when it will be needed by the government (par. 3, Ibid); that the space or area is needed by the plaintiff for the docking or berthing of pumpboats (motorized bancas) and fishing boats and for the loading and unloading of cargoes along the pier on both sides thereof (par. 4, Ibid); and also to ease the congested traffic along it (par. 10, Ibid); that his Excellency, President Ferdinand E. Marcos had the Mayor of plaintiff-municipality to demolish and remove all constructions along the pier after giving the defendants one month notice (par. 5, Ibid) and aside from this directive of the President, the mayor of the plaintiff-municipality is also authorized to remove the defendants' illegal constructions under LOI 19 (par. 7, Ibid); that despite said mayor's desire to comply immediately with the said presidential directive, the defendants had already been given 3 extensions thereby delaying their ejectment therefrom (par. 6, Ibid); that most of the defendants are affluent squatters (par. 9, Ibid); and that for the indigent defendants, a surveyed area has already been made ready for their relocation (par. 12, Ibid). (Decision CFI, Palawan and Puerto Princess City, Branch IV, p. 2; Reno, p. 15). On the other hand, the private respondents, in their answer, counter-alleged, among others: that their structures when made were covered by building permits with the approval of the Bureau of Public Highways (par, 2, Answer); that the area where their structures were located is a foreshore area (Par. 4, Ibid); that a meeting was convened and presided by Governor Socrates at Coron, the same having been attended by the local representatives of the Philippine Constabulary, the Philippine Coast Guard, the Department (now Ministry) of Social Services and Development, the Sangguniang Bayan and the defendants and it was agreed in this meeting that the demolition of the defendants' houses will be suspended pending action of the Office of the President (par. 15, 16, 17, Ibid); and that the Chairman of the National Housing Authority had sent a letter-advice to the mayor of the plaintiff-municipality to suspend the demolition of the houses of the defendants (par. 18, Ibid). (Rollo, pp. 15-16) After a series of postponements, the trial court, on January 16, 1979, reset the hearing of the case for the last time for three consecutive dates, March 20, 21, and 22, 1979 with further warning to the private respondents that no more postponements shall be allowed. On March 20, 1979, despite proper notice, the private respondents and their counsel failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. Consequently, the petitioner moved that private respondents' non-appearance be considered as a waiver on their part of their right to cross-examine the petitioner's witnesses and their right to present evidence. The lower court issued an order granting the petitioner's motion and considered the case submitted for decision. In view of the above order, the private respondents went to the appellate court on certiorari. On June 9, 1979, the appellate court dismissed for lack of merit

CA G.R. SP-09389-R captioned "Jose Carino, et al., petitioners v. Mayor Ricardo Lim and Hon. Benjamin Vega, Judge CFI, Palawan, Branch IV." On May 15, 1979, after the main case had been submitted for decision as aforestated, the private respondents filed a notice to take deposition which the lower court disregarded for being "irrelevant and for other obvious reasons." On October 10, 1980, the lower court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff-municipality of Coron, Palawan and against all the herein defendants as follows: 1. Dismissing the defendants'counterclaim for lack of merit;

2. Confirming the power of plaintiff-municipality and authority of its incumbent mayor to demolish the defendants' structures along the rock causeway or pier of Coron; and 3. Ordering the said defendants to remove their structures in the area in question within thirty (30) days from receipt of this decision and for their failure to do so, authorizing the herein plaintiff represented by its incumbent mayor to demolish the said structures at the expense of the said defendants. Costs against all the defendants. (Rollo, pp. 28-29) On appeal, the private respondents on February 2, 1982 were required "to submit the forty (40) printed copies of their record on appeal together with the proof of service of fifteen (15) copies thereof upon the appellee" within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice of the appellate court's Acting Clerk of Court regarding their appeal. (Rollo, p. 32) Upon motion by the private respondents, the appellate court granted an extension of sixty (60) days from April 7, 1982 within which the required printed copies of the record on appeal may be submitted. However, despite the extended period given, the private respondents were not able to comply with the appellate court's requirement. In a resolution dated July 19, 1982, the appellate court required the private respondents to show cause why their appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file the printed copies of the record on appeal. On August 31, 1982, the appellate court resolved to dismiss the private respondents' appeal docketed as CA G.R. No. 69052-R for failure to file the required record on appeal. On December 6, 1982, the Acting Clerk of Court of the appellate court, in an Entry of Judgment, certified that the above resolution dismissing the private respondents' appeal had become final and executory on September 27, 1982.

Accordingly, on February 1, 1983, a writ of execution was issued to enforce the October 10, 1980 decision of the Court of First Instance of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City, Branch IV. Before the Provincial Sheriff could proceed with the execution of the judgment, the private respondents, in a motion dated April 12, 1983 asked the appellate court that the records of the case be recalled from the court of origin. In their supplemental motion, the private respondents argued that since under the present law, printed records on appeal are no longer required, their right to be heard on appeal must be upheld instead of the rule on technicalities. In its opposition to the private respondents' motion, the Petitioner pointed out that although the newly promulgated procedural rules invoked by the private respondents may be given retroactive effect, their applicability only covers pending actions and does not extend to those which had already become final and executory. As a consequence of the private respondents' motion to recall the records of the case, a temporary restraining order dated April 29, 1983 was issued by the appellate court directing the Provincial Sheriff of Palawan to desist from executing the October 10, 1980 decision. On July 29, 1983, the appellate court issued the disputed resolution. The subsequent denial of the petitioner's motion for reconsideration prompted the filing of this petition. The petitioner maintains that the Interim Rules of Court promulgated on January 11, 1983 to implement the provisions of Batas Pambansa Bilang 29 cannot apply to the case at bar for the simple reason that to revive or recall appealed cases which had been dismissed or which had become final and executory would cause a great injustice to those in whose favor these cases had been decided. It is further contended that to allow its application would put no end to those appealed cases which are otherwise considered as closed ones. We find merit in the petitioner's contentions. We have resolved the issue as to the extent of the retroactive application of section 18 of the Interim Rules of Court in Alday v. Camilon (120 SCRA 521). We reiterated the rule that: Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense and to that extent. (People vs. Sumilang, 77 Phil. 764 [1946]) Emphasis supplied. The appellate court should have followed this time-honoured rule instead of issuing its July 29, 1983 resolution seeking to revive a case already long final as evidenced by the entry of judgment made by its Acting Clerk of Court on

December 6, 1982. The records of the instant case show that despite the 60-day extension period given to the private respondents within which they could file their printed record of appeal as then required, they still failed to do so. It was only after a writ of execution had been issued on February 1, 1983 that the private respondents responded to the appellate court's resolution dated July 19, 1982 requiring them to show cause why their appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file the printed record on appeal. They claimed that the court's resolution must have been a result of oversight because they actually filed a record on appeal. As a general rule, our policy towards an invocation of the right to appeal has been one of liberality. (Castro vs. Court of Appeals, 123 SCRA 782 citing De Las Alas vs. Court of Appeals, 83 SCRA 200). This is so because an appeal is an essential part of our judicial system and every party-litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause freed from the constraints of technicalities. (See Siguenza vs. Court of Appeals, 137 SCRA 570). However, it is an equally established doctrine that the right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. (See United CMC Textile Workers Union vs. Clave, 137 SCRA 346). For a proper exercise of their right to appeal, the private respondents should have complied with Section 5, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, as amended by our resolution en banc dated September 17, 1974, which partly provides that: Sec. 5. Duty of Appellant upon Receipt of Notice. It shall be the duty of the appellant, within fifteen (15) days from the date of the notice referred to in the preceding section, to pay to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals the fee for the docketing of the appeal, and within sixty (60) days from such notice to submit to the court twelve (12) printed copies of the record on appeal, or twelve (12) typewritten or mimeographed (on one side of good quality paper, eleven inches in length by eight and a half inches in width commonly known as letter size written double spaced) copies of said record on appeal together with proof of service of two (2) printed, typewritten or mimeographed copies thereof upon the appellee. Thus, upon failure of the appellant to comply with the above rule, the Court of Appeals may dismiss his appeal. Said provision implicitly grants the Court of Appeals the power to do so. (See Pfleider vs. Victoriano, 98 SCRA 491). The private respondents in this case did not submit printed copies of their record on appeal. When the appellate court issued its July 19, 1982 resolution, it was to afford the private respondents a chance to explain why they failed to comply with the applicable rule. After having failed to submit the required printed copies of their record on appeal, they cannot now rectify a clear noncompliance with the law by invoking the court's liberality insofar as the application of remedial laws is concerned. The private respondents even faulted the appellate court as having issued the July 19, 1982 resolution through oversight. They alleged that they had filed the required record on

appeal when in fact what they referred to was the record on appeal from the lower court to the appellate court and not the printed record on appeal. Since the private respondents failed to submit the required printed record on appeal, the lower court's judgment in favor of the petitioner became final. and executory as an eventual result of the dismissal of the appeal. Once a judgment becomes final the prevailing party, the petitioner in the instant case, is entitled as a matter of right to the execution of the judgment in his favor. For the court, it becomes its ministerial duty to order the execution of said judgment. (Santos, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 56614, promulgated July 28, 1987 citing Agricultural and Industrial Marketing, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 118 SCRA 49; Balintawak Construction Supply Corporation vs. Valenzuela, 124 SCRA 331; Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Dayrit, 123 SCRA 203; Gonzales vs. Sayo, 122 SCRA 607). WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The resolution of respondent appellate court dated July 29, 1983 is SET ASIDE. Let the records of this case be remanded to the court of origin for enforcement of the writ of execution of the judgment. This decision is immediately executory. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 97998. January 27, 1992. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and BENITO SALVANI PE, respondents. Ruben e. Agpalo for Sps. Gauvain and Bernardita Benzonan. Vicente R. Acsay for Benito Salvani Pe. Thomas T, Jacobo for DBP. SYLLABUS 1.CIVIL LAW; PUBLIC LAND ACT (C.A. NO. 141); MORTGAGE OF PUBLIC LANDS; REDEMPTION; NOT ALLOWED WHERE THE INTENTION OF THE MORTGAGOR WAS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING THE SAME WITHIN THE FAMILY FOLD; CASE AT BAR. Only three months after getting the free patent and the original certificate of title over the subject lot, it was mortgaged by respondent Pe to get a commercial loan of nearly P1 million from DBP. Pe spent the proceeds of the loan to construct permanent improvements on the lot. The entire lot has been converted to serve commercial and industrial purposes. The records show that it was never the intention of respondent Pe to utilize the land, given to him for free by the Government, for agricultural purposes. He was not the kind of poor farmer for whom homesteads and free patents were intended by the law. In the light of the records of these cases, we rule that respondent Pe cannot repurchase the disputed property without doing violence to everything that CA No. 141 (as amended) stands for. 2.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PURPOSE AND BASIC OBJECTIVE. The underlying principle of Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 is to give the homesteader or patentee every chance to preserve for himself and his family the land that the State had gratuitously given to him as a reward for his labor in cleaning and cultivating it. (Simeon v. Pea, 36 SCRA 617 cited in Vargas v. Court of Appeals, 91 SCRA 195, 200, [1979]). Its basic objective is to promote public policy, that is, to provide home and decent living for destitutes, aimed at promoting a class of independent small landholders which is the bulwark of peace and order. Santana, et al. v. Marias, 94 SCRA 753, 861-862 [1979]. 3.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; FIVE-YEAR PERIOD COMMENCES FROM DATE OF

CONVEYANCE OR FORECLOSURE SALE PURSUANT TO MONGE (101 Phil. 563) AND TUPAZ (132 SCRA 593) CASES; DOCTRINE IN BELISARIO CASE (165 SCRA 101) REVERSING THE RULING IN THE MONGE AND TUPAZ CASES; NOT APPLICABLE TO CASE AT BAR. As noted by the respondent court, the 1988 case of Belisario reversed the previous rulings of this Court enunciated in Monge, et al., v. Angeles, et al., 101 Phil. 563 [1957] and Tupas v. Damasco, et al., 132 SCRA 593 [1984] to the effect that the five year period of repurchase should be counted from the date of conveyance or foreclosure sale. The petitioners, however, urge that Belisario should only be applied prospectively or after 1988 since it established a new doctrine. We sustain the petitioners' position. It is undisputed that the subject lot was mortgaged to DBP on February 24, 1970. It was acquired by DBP as the highest bidder at a foreclosure sale on June 18, 1977, and then sold to the petitioners on September 29, 1979. At that time, the prevailing jurisprudence interpreting section 119 of R.A. 141 as amended was that enunciated in Monge and Tupas cited above. 4.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; REASON. The petitioners Benzonan and respondent Pe and the DBP are bound by these decisions for pursuant to Article 8 of the Civil Code "judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines." But while our decisions form part of the law of the land, they are also subject to Article 4 of the Civil Code which provides that "laws shall have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is provided." This is expressed in the familiar legal maxim lex prospicit, non respicit, the law looks forward not backward. The rationale against retroactivity is easy to perceive. The retroactive application of a law usually divests rights that have already become vested or impairs the obligations of contract and hence, is unconstitutional (Francisco v. Certeza, 3 SCRA 565 [1961]). The same consideration underlies our rulings giving only prospective effect to decisions enunciating new doctrines. Thus, we emphasized in People v. Jabinal, 55 SCRA 607 [1974] ". . . when a doctrine of this Court is overruled and a different view is adopted, the new doctrine should be applied prospectively and should not apply to parties who had relied on the old doctrine and acted on the faith thereof. 5.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ABSENCE OF EQUITABLE CONSIDER