DE ROY VS.

CA (1988):

Facts: The firewall of a burned out building owned by Felisa De Roy collapsed and
destroyed the tailoring shop occupied by the family of Luis Bernal resulting in
injuries and even to the death of Bernal’s daughter. De Roy claimed that Bernal had
been warned prior hand but that she was ignored.
In the RTC, De Roy was found guilty of gross negligence. She appealed but the Court of
Appeals affirmed the RTC. On the last day of filing a motion for reconsideration, De
Roy’s counsel filed a motion for extension. It was denied by the CA. The CA ruled
that pursuant to the case of Habaluyas Enterprises vs Japzon(August 1985), the fifteen-
day period for appealing or for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be extended.
De Roy’s counsel however argued that the Habaluyas case should not be applicable
because said ruling was never published in the Official Gazette.
ISSUE: Whether or not Supreme Court decisions must be published in the Official
Gazette before they can be binding.
HELD: No. There is no law requiring the publication of Supreme Court decision in the
Official Gazette before they can be binding and as a condition to their becoming
effective. It is 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 and in such publications as the SCRA and law journals.

NUEVA ECIJA ELECTRONIC COOPERATIVE VS. ERC (2016):

Facts:

Issue: WoN there is a need for ERC

Ruling: As such interpretative regulations, their publication in the Official

Gazette or their filing with the Office of the National Administrative Register at
the U.P. Law Center was not necessary. Procedural due process demands that
administrative rules and regulations be published in order to be effective.
However, by way of exception, interpretative regulations need not comply with
the publication requirement set forth in Section 18, Chapter 5, Book I,64 and the
filing requirement in Sections 3 and 4, Chapter 2, Book VII,65 of the
Administrative Code. Interpretative regulations add nothing to the law and do
not affect substantial rights of any person; hence, in this case, they need to be
subjected to the procedural due process of publication or filing before electric
cooperatives may be ordered to abide by them.

MILLAROSA VS. CARMEL DEVELOPMENT INC. (2013):

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

FLORESCA VS. PHILEX (1985):

Facts: