5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Employment Program and from recruiting and hiring Filipino workers until and unless it fully satisfies the judgement award. Noncompliance with the mandatory periods for resolutions of case provided under this section shall subject the responsible officials to any or all of the following penalties: (a) The salary of any such official who fails to render his decision or resolution within the prescribed period shall be, or caused to be, withheld until the said official complies therewith; (b) Suspension for not more than ninety (90) days; or (c) Dismissal from the service with disqualification to hold any appointive public office for five (5) years. Provided, however, That the penalties herein provided shall be without prejudice to any liability which any such official may have incured [sic] under other existing laws or rules and regulations as a consequence of violating the provisions of this paragraph. (Emphasis supplied) Republic Act No. 10022 was promulgated on March 8, 2010. This means that the reinstatement of the clause in Republic Act No. 8042 was not yet in effect at the time of respondent’s termination from work in 1997.[86] Republic Act No. 8042 before it was amended by Republic Act No. 10022 governs this case. When a law is passed, this court awaits an actual case that clearly raises adversarial positions in their proper context before considering a prayer to declare it as unconstitutional. However, we are confronted with a unique situation. The law passed incorporates the exact clause already declared as unconstitutional, without any perceived substantial change in the circumstances. This may cause confusion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals. At minimum, the existence of Republic Act No. 10022 may delay the execution of the judgment in this case, further frustrating remedies to assuage the wrong done to petitioner. Hence, there is a necessity to decide this constitutional issue. Moreover, this court is possessed with the constitutional duty to “[p]romulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights.”[87] When cases become moot and academic, we do not hesitate to provide for guidance to bench and bar in situations where the same violations are capable of repetition but will evade review. This is analogous to cases where there are millions of Filipinos working abroad who are bound to suffer from the lack of protection because of the restoration of an identical clause in a provision previously declared as unconstitutional. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57319 12/39