40
TANADA v. TUVERA Facts: A number of presidential decrees had not been published, thus, the petitioners herein invoked due process for the disclosure of such decrees. The government argues that said decrees need not be published, it was so when it was “unless otherwise provided” as when the decrees themselves declared that they were effective immediately upon approval. The decision of the lower court orders the respondent to publish in the Official Gaette all unpublished presidential issuance t hat are of general application. !nless so published, they shall have no binding force and effect. Issue/s: "#$ %an laws take effect without publication& "'$ (o courts have the power to repeal or modify the law& Held: Article ' of t he %ivil code stat es that, “)aws shall take effect fifteen "#*$ days following the completion of their publication in the official Gaette unless it is otherwise provided. This act shall take effect one year after such publication.” +t is very clear that publication is indispensable in every case however, the legislature has the discretion on when the said law should take ef fect. Therefore, all statut es, 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 date is fi-ed by the legislature. 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 law. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaiti!!"appell ee, vs. #UE PO LA$, de!edat"appellat. Facts: o )ay was accused of violating %ircular /o. '0 of the %entral 1ank compelling those who had foreign currency to sell the same to the %ent ral 1ank. o )ay alleged that as the circular had not yet been published in the Official Gaette before he committed the act, the circular should have no effect on his act and therefore, he should be ac2uitted. Issue/s: +s o )ay3s claim valid& Held: 4e s. o )ay is correct for t he circular has the force of law, and should have been published. 5oreover, as a rule, circulars which prescribe a penalty for their violation should be published before becoming effective. This is based on the general principle and theory that before the public is bound by its contents, especially its penal provisions, a law, a regulation or circular must first be published, and the people officially and specifically informed of said contents and the penalties for violation thereof. GA6%+A v. 67%+O Facts: On 5arch #, #89:, 6oderick 6ecio, ;ilipino, married 7ditha <amson, an A ustralian citien. Two years after, t hey divorced. After becomi ng an Australian citien in #88', 6oderick married Grace Garcia in %abanatuan %ity. On 5arch #889, Garcia filed for a declaration of nullity of marriage. <he claimed that 6oderick was guilty of bigamy, because according to Articles ## , #= and *' of the ;amily %ode, 6oderick was re2uired to present his divorce decree upon filing for a marriage license in #88>. 1ecause he did not present this decree, Garcia claimed that 6ecio was considered to still be married to his first wife. 6espondent claimed that his first divorce decree from Austr alia was valid and therefore, he was legally free to remarry . ;urthermore, in ?uly #889, 6oderick was able to obtain a divorce decree for his marriage to Garcia from the Australian court s. The trial court declared that their marriage has already been dissolved, based on the validity of the divorce decree from Australia. <ince Aust ralian courts had ended the marriage, then the court merely validated their decis ion. The case was appealed. Issue: "#$ +s 6oderick re2uired to comply with Articles ## , #= and *> of the hilippine ;amily %ode in order to obtain a marriage license for his marriage with Garcia& "'$ <ince 6oderick did not comply with the said Articles, is hi s marriage, then, considered valid& Held: The court found that 6oderick, being an Australian citien at the time of h is second marriage, was not re2uired to follow the registration re2uirements of our ;amily %ode. Those personal laws are only binding upon citiens of the hilippines "Article #*, %ivil %ode$. 1ased on that decision, the case then rested on the 2uestion of whether the respondent was legally allowed to remarry on the basis of his divorce decree from Australia. The court finally ruled that 6oderick3s divorce did not automatically imply that he was free to remarry. The case was remanded to the trial court for the purpose of obtaining more evidence. D% &ONSUN'I VS. &A ( G.R. No. L-137873, April 20, 2001) Facts: ?ose ?uego, a construction worker of (.5 %onsun@i, +nc. "(5%+$ fell fourtenn "#>$ floors from the 6enaissance Tower, asig %ity to his death. <O= 6ogelio illanueva investigated the trag edy and filed a report. ?ose ?uego3s widow, 5aria, filed in the trial court of asig a complaint for damages against (5% + the employer. (5%+ raised the widow3s prior availment of the benefits from the <tate +nsurance fund. The trial court rendered the decision in favor of the widow. (5%+ appealed, but the %ourt of Appeals affirmed of the trial court decision. (5%+ now seeks the reversal of the %A decision on the following groundsB "#$ The appellate court erred in holding that the police report was admissible evidence of the alleged negligence of petitioner "'$ The appellate court erred in holding that the doctrinal of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to prove negligence of petitioner "=$ The appellate court erred in holding that the petitioner is presumed negligent under Article '#90 of the %ivil %ode and ">$ The appellate court erred in holding that respondent is not precluded for recovering damages under the %ivil %ode. Issue: "#$ +s the contention of (5%+ tenable& "'$ +s ?ose3s widow still entitled to the civil damages under the %ivil %ode after claiming benefits provided by the 7%%& Held: The law provides that, “The e-ception is that a claimant who has already been paid under the C%A may still sue for damages under the %ivil %ode on the basis of supervising facts or developing occurring after he opted for the first remedy.” +n the case at bar, there is no showing that the private respondent know of the remedies available to h er when the claim before the 7%% was filed, and that she was not aware of her rights. Accordingly , her ignorance thereof cannot be held against her. Thus, it e-empts her fro m the general rule of election for claiming damages.
![Sales Digest Compilation [Updated With Herrera and Luy Kim Guan]](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/544eb530b1af9f23638b50ab/sales-digest-compilation-updated-with-herrera-and-luy-kim-guan.jpg)
![ADVERTISING Rates & Data, 2018 - Reader's Digest 18/RD_Ad_Rates_&_Data_2018[1].pdf · READER’S DIGEST 90 years of Excellence THEN n Launched in 1922 n Compilation best articles](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5e3e5e128522553531390286/advertising-rates-data-2018-readers-digest-18rdadratesdata20181pdf.jpg)
