Pesigan v. Angeles
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Anselmo L. Pesigan and Marcelino L. Pesigan, engaged in the business of dealing carabaos, transported twenty-six carabaos and a calf from Sipocot, Camarines Sur to Padre Garcia, Batangas. They possessed a health certificate, a permit to transport large cattle, and three certificates of inspection, attesting to the legality of their transaction. Procedural History: Despite having the necessary permits and certificates, the carabaos were confiscated by Lieutenant Arnulfo V. Zenarosa and Dr. Bella S. Miranda, based on Presidential Executive Order No. 626-A, which prohibited the transport of carabaos from one province to another and provided for their confiscation and forfeiture. The confiscated carabaos were distributed among farmers. The Pesigans filed an action for replevin and damages. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, presided over by Judge Domingo Medina Angeles, dismissed the case for lack of cause of action. The Petition: The Pesigans appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the confiscation was unlawful as Executive Order No. 626-A had not yet been published in the Official Gazette at the time of the confiscation.
Issue(s)
Whether Presidential Executive Order No. 626-A, which provides for the confiscation and forfeiture of carabaos transported between provinces, was enforceable against the petitioners on April 2, 1982, prior to its publication in the Official Gazette. Whether the confiscation of the carabaos was lawful despite the petitioners possessing the necessary permits and certificates.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the trial court's order of dismissal and the confiscation and dispersal of the carabaos. Respondents Miranda and Zenarosa were ordered to restore the carabaos, with the requisite documents, to the petitioners. The Court held that Executive Order No. 626-A was not enforceable on April 2, 1982, as it had not yet been published in the Official Gazette, and thus the confiscation was not in order. However, the petitioners could not transport the carabaos to Batangas as they were now bound by the executive order, nor could they recover damages, as the respondents acted in good faith.
Ratio Decidendi
On the enforceability of Executive Order No. 626-A prior to publication: The Court held that Executive Order No. 626-A should not be enforced against the petitioners on April 2, 1982, because it was a penal regulation that was published in the Official Gazette only on June 14, 1982. As per Article 2 of the Civil Code and Section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code, it became effective fifteen days after its publication. The Court reiterated the principle that publication in the Official Gazette is necessary to apprise the public of the contents of regulations prescribing penalties and to make those penalties binding. This principle was established in cases like People vs. Que Po Lay and Lim Hoa Ting vs. Central Bank of the Phils. The Court emphasized that the confiscation and forfeiture provision makes the executive order a penal statute, thus requiring publication for its validity and enforceability against individuals. The Court distinguished this case from Police Commission vs. Bello and Philippine Blooming Mills vs. Social Security System, which did not involve penal regulations. Commonwealth Act No. 638 mandates the publication of executive orders with general applicability, and Section 551 of the Revised Administrative Code requires bureau regulations and orders to be published or publicly promulgated to become effective. The Court noted that even the livestock inspector and provincial veterinarian were unaware of the executive order, further supporting the argument that the Pesigans could not have been expected to know about it. On the lawfulness of the confiscation: Given that Executive Order No. 626-A was not yet enforceable at the time of the confiscation, the Court ruled that the summary confiscation was not in order. The petitioners had complied with all the required permits and certificates for the transport of the carabaos. Therefore, the confiscation, which was based solely on a regulation that had not yet been made public, was unlawful. The Court found that while the confiscation was unlawful, the respondents, Dr. Miranda and Lt. Zenarosa, acted in good faith, believing they were implementing a valid executive order. Consequently, while the carabaos were to be returned, the petitioners were not awarded damages. The Court also noted that the petitioners, as owners, were entitled to possess the carabaos but could not transport them to Batangas due to the now-published executive order, implying they could dispose of them within the provinces of Camarines Sur.
Main Doctrine
A penal regulation, including an executive order providing for confiscation and forfeiture as a sanction, must be published in the Official Gazette to be enforceable against the public. Without such publication, individuals cannot be bound by its provisions, and actions taken based on it may be deemed unlawful.