TANADA V TUVERA

FACTS:

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.

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, x x x"

ISSUE:

WON publication in the official gazette is necessary for the effectivity of laws

HELD:

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.

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.

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.

The Court therefore declares that presidential issuances of general application, which have not
been published, shall have no force and effect.
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unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, and unless so published,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.

DE ROY v CA

FACTS:

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.

the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment finding petitioners guilty of gross negligence and
awarding damages to private respondents. AND WAS AFFIRMED BY CA

On 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.
Petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration but the same was denied.

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

ISSUE:

WON CA committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioners' motion for extension
of time to file a motion for reconsideration

WON the rule enunciated in the Habaluyas case should not be made to apply to the case at bar
(that the fifteen-day period for appealing or for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be
extended)

HELD:

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. the fifteen-day period for
appealing or for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be extended.
In the instant case , petitioners' motion for extension of time was filed more than a year after the
expiration of the grace period 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.

Further, 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.