4.
National Power Corporation vs Pinatubo Commercial As ruled by the SC in the case of Tañada vs Tuvera, publication is
GR 176006, March 26, 2010 an indispensable requisite for statues, administrative rules, and
regulations to have binding force and effect.
FACTS: However, interpretative regulations and those merely internal in
nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative
NPC Circular No. 99-75 set the guidelines in the “disposal of scrap
agency and not the public, need not be published. Neither is
aluminum conductor steel-reinforced or ACSRs to decongest and
publication required of the so-called letters of instructions issued
maintain good housekeeping in NPC installations and to generate
by administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to
additional income for NPC.
be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their
Respondent Pinatubo Commercial, a trader of scrap materials
duties.
such as copper, aluminum, steel, and other ferrous and non-
The same applies to NPC Circular No. 99-75, being merely an
ferrous materials, submitted a pre-qualification form to NPC
internal rule or regulation, it did not purport to enforce or
which was subsequently denied. Petitioner asked for
implement an existing law but was merely a directive issued by
reconsideration, but it was denied.
the NPC President to his subordinates to regulate the proper and
Pinatubo then filed a petition in the RTRC for the annulment of
efficient disposal of scrap ACSRs to qualified bidders.
the circular. It argued that the circular was unconstitutional as it
The Circular merely defined the responsibilities of the different
violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the
NPC personnel in the disposal, pre-qualification, bidding, and
Constitution.
award of scrap ACSRs. It did not in any way affect the rights of the
The RTC upheld Pinatubo’s position and ruled that it was violative
public in general or of any other person not involved in the
of substantive due process because, while it created rights in
bidding process. Assuming it affected individual rights, it did so
favor of third parties, the circular had not been published.
only remotely, indirectly, or incidentally.
NPC insists that there was no need to publish the circular since it
was not of general application. It was addressed only to particular WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED.
persons or class of persons, namely those involved in the
disposition of ACSRs.
ISSUE: WON NPC CIRCULAR NO. 99-75 MUST BE PUBLISHED (No)
RULING: