G.R. No.
L-64279 April 30, 1984
ANSELMO L. PESIGAN and MARCELINO L. PESIGAN, petitioners,
vs.
JUDGE DOMINGO MEDINA ANGELES, ET AL., respondents.
Quiazon, De Guzman Makalintal and Barot for petitioners.
The Solicitor General for respondents.
AQUINO, J.:ñé+.£ªwph!1
At issue in this case is the enforceability, before publication in the Official Gazette of June 14, 1982, of Presidential Executive Order No. 626-A dated October
25, 1980, providing for the confiscation and forfeiture by the government of carabaos transported from one province to another.
Anselmo L. Pesigan and Marcelo L. Pesigan, carabao dealers, transported in an Isuzu ten-wheeler truck in the evening of April 2, 1982 twenty-six carabaos and
a calf from Sipocot, Camarines Sur with Padre Garcia, Batangas, as the destination.
They were provided with (1) a health certificate from the provincial veterinarian of Camarines Sur, (2) a permit to transport large cattle (3) three certificates of
inspection.
In spite of the permit to transport and the said four certificates, the carabaos, while passing at Basud, Camarines Norte, were confiscated by Lieutenant Arnulfo
V. Zenarosa, the town's police station commander, and by Doctor Bella S. Miranda, provincial veterinarian. The confiscation was basis on the aforementioned
Executive Order No. 626-A which provides "that henceforth, no carabao, regardless of age, sex, physical condition or purpose and no carabeef shall be
transported from one province to another. The carabaos or carabeef transported in violation of this Executive Order as amended shall be subject to confiscation
and forfeiture by the government to be distributed ... to deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit, in the case of
carabaos" (78 OG 3144). Doctor Miranda distributed the carabaos among twenty-five farmers of Basud, and to a farmer from the Vinzons municipal nursery
(Annex 1).
The Pesigans filed against Zenarosa and Doctor Miranda an action for replevin for the recovery of the carabaos allegedly valued at P70,000 and damages of
P92,000. The replevin order could not be executed by the sheriff. In his order of April 25, 1983 Judge Domingo Medina Angeles , who heard the case at Daet
and who was later transferred to Caloocan City, dismissed the case for lack of cause of action.
The Pesigans appealed to this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and section 25 of the Interim Rules and pursuant to Republic Act No. 5440, a 1968
law which superseded Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.
RTC—in favor of Zenarosa and Miranda. Dismissed petition for lack of cause of action
ISSUE:
WON Executive Order No. 626-A is enforceable on this case
RULING:
NO.
We hold that the said executive order should not be enforced against the Pesigans on April 2, 1982 because, as already noted, it is a penal regulation published
more than two months later in the Official Gazette dated June 14, 1982. It became effective only fifteen days thereafter as provided in article 2 of the Civil Code
and section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code.
The word "laws" in article 2 (article 1 of the old Civil Code) includes circulars and regulations which prescribe penalties. Publication is necessary to apprise the
public of the contents of the regulations and make the said penalties binding on the persons affected thereby.
That ruling applies to a violation of Executive Order No. 626-A because its confiscation and forfeiture provision or sanction makes it a penal statute. Justice and
fairness dictate that the public must be informed of that provision by means of publication in the Gazette before violators of the executive order can be bound
thereby.
Indeed, the practice has always been to publish executive orders in the Gazette. Section 551 of the Revised Administrative Code provides that even bureau
"regulations and orders shall become effective only when approved by the Department Head and published in the Official Gazette or otherwise publicly
promulgated". (See Commissioner of Civil Service vs. Cruz, 122 Phil. 1015.)
WHEREFORE, the trial court's order of dismissal and the confiscation and dispersal of the carabaos are reversed and set aside. Respondents Miranda and
Zenarosa are ordered to restore the carabaos, with the requisite documents, to the petitioners, who as owners are entitled to possess the same, with the right
to dispose of them in Basud or Sipocot, Camarines Sur. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
