Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Judge Zosimo Angeles (Case Digest) G.R. No. 108461

Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Judge Zosimo Angeles
G.R. No. 108461
October 21, 1996

PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. HON PRESIDING JUDGE ZOSIMO Z. ANGELES, BRANCH 58, RTC, MAKATI; REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION; AND FIRESTONE CERAMIC, INC., respondents.

Facts:
The Philippine Trading International Corporation (PITC) issued Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 which commands that applications to the PITC for importation from the People’s Republic of China (PROC) must be accompanied by a viable and confirmed Export Program of Philippine Products to PROC carried out by the importer 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 at one is to one ratio.

The private respondents Remington and Firestone, both domestic corporations, applied for authority to import with the petitioner. However, they failed to comply with the mandates of AO SOCPEC 89-09-01 so that further import applications were withheld by PITC. Because of this, Remington filed for a petition for prohibition and madamus with prayer for the issuance of a TRO against PITC and was joined by Firestone later.

Hon. Zosimo Angeles, the judge handling the case at the trial court, granted the petitioners’ request and declared as null and void and unconstitutional the administrative order issued by the PITC. Among his reasons for the judgment was the fact that the AO was not published. Later on, President Fidel Ramos directed the Department of Trade and Industry and the PITC to cease implementing the said AO.

The respondents contend that the case has been moot and moved for its early resolution. PITC, however, disagreed that the case is moot because the respondents still have an outstanding liability.

Issues:
1. Does the administrative order have a binding effect even if it had not been published?
2. Can the respondents be made liable for an unpublished administrative order?

Ruling:
1. No. As provided by Article 2 of the Civil Code, the publication of laws is an indispensable step in making the law effective. The administrative order in question should have been implemented because its purpose is to “enforce and implement an existing law pursuant to a valid delegation.” Therefore, even before the president has directed that the AO cease to be implemented, it had never been legally effective.

2. No. The unpublished administrative order had no effect in pursuance to Article 2 of the Civil Code so any liability incurred because of it is invalid.