G.R. No.

L-17931 February 28, 1963

CASCO PHILIPPINE CHEMICAL CO., INC., petitioner,
vs.
HON. PEDRO GIMENEZ, in his capacity as Auditor General of the Philippines,
and HON. ISMAEL MATHAY, in his capacity as Auditor of the Central Bank, respondents.

Facts

The Central Bank of the Philippines passed a circular called the Foreign Exchange Margin Fee Law
that fixed a 25% margin fee for foreign exchange transactions. Later on, the Bank passed a
supplementary memorandum listing importations exempted from the payment of the margin fee.

Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing synthetic resin glues used in the bonding of
lumber, veneer and plywood. Petitioner purchased foreign exchange of around Php34,000 for the
first importation of urea and formaldehyde, components used in the manufacture of resin glue,
and Php6,000 for the second importation. After the passage of the above circular, petitioner
sought a refund of the amount equivalent to 25% of the fees paid for the importation of urea
formaldehyde because they were relying on Resolution no. 1529 passed by the Central Bank on
November 3, 1959 stating that the importation of urea formaldehyde would be exempted from the
payment of the 25% margin fee.

However, the Auditor of the Bank refused to release the refund on the ground that the petitioner's
separate importation of urea and formaldehyde is not covered by the exemption declared in
Resolution no. 1529. Petitioner contends that urea formaldehyde in the said resolution must be
construed to mean urea AND formaldehyde.

Issue

Whether “urea formaldehyde” in Resolution no. 1529 must be construed to mean “urea AND
formaldehyde”.

Held

No. The resolution is quite clear in its omission of the word AND between urea and formaldehyde
for they are completely distinct from urea formaldehyde; the first two are raw materials while the
last is a finished product used in the manufacture of resin glue.

Besides, if there was indeed a mistake in the printing of the bill, it must be fixed by curative
legislation and not by judicial decree because to do so would be an infringement on the doctrine of
separation of powers.
G.R. No. L-23475 April 30, 1974
HERMINIO A. ASTORGA, in his capacity as Vice-Mayor of Manila, petitioner,
vs.
ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, in his capacity as Mayor of Manila, THE HON., THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
ABELARDO SUBIDO, in his capacity as Commissioner of Civil Service, EDUARDO QUINTOS, in his capacity as
Chief of Police of Manila, MANUEL CUDIAMAT, in his capacity as City Treasurer of Manila, CITY OF MANILA,
JOSE SEMBRANO, FRANCISCO GATMAITAN, MARTIN ISIDRO, CESAR LUCERO, PADERES TINOCO,
LEONARDO FUGOSO, FRANCIS YUSECO, APOLONIO GENER, AMBROCIO LORENZO, JR., ALFONSO
MENDOZA, JR., SERGIO LOYOLA, GERINO TOLENTINO, MARIANO MAGSALIN, EDUARDO QUINTOS,
JR., AVELINO VILLACORTA, PABLO OCAMPO, FELICISIMO CABIGAO, JOSE BRILLANTES, JOSE
VILLANUEVA and MARINA FRANCISCO, in their capacities as members of the Municipal Board

Facts
Sen. Arturo Tolentino passed House Bill No. 9266, which became Republic Act 4065, "An Act
Defining the Powers, Rights and Duties of the Vice-Mayor of the City of Manila, Further Amending
for the Purpose Sections Ten and Eleven of Republic Act Numbered Four Hundred Nine, as
Amended, Otherwise Known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila."
The bill was passed to the Senate Committee on Municipal Governments, Provinces and Cities
headed by Sen. Gerardo Roxas for approval. The bill was approved with minor amendments
introduced by Sen. Roxas.
Afterwards, the bill was read for the third time where Sen. Tolentino proposed major amendments,
which were approved by the Senate. Later on, copies of the bill were printed and signed by the
Senate President, the House Speaker and the President.
However, it was later found out through the legislative journal that only the Roxas amendments
were incorporated in the enrolled bill and the major amendments proposed by Tolentino were not
included. The Senate President, House Speaker and President promptly withdrew their signatures
and consequently invalidated the bill. Therefore, petitioner could not be allowed to exercise the
powers that were supposed to be conferred upon him by the invalidated bill.
Issue
Whether the enrolled bill must always prevail over the legislative journal.
Held
Ordinarily, yes. However, when it is found that there are amendments or revisions that were
recorded in the journal but were not included in the enrolled bill, the Courts may declare the bill
invalid by virtue of the records in the journal. Our laws adhere to the Orthodox View on the Effect
of Unconstitutional Statutes or Laws. Such laws, when invalidated or declared void, shall be struck
from statute books as if they have never been enacted. As was held in Norton vs. Shelby, an
unconstitutional statute confers no rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection – it will be
as if no such law has ever existed.