You are on page 1of 3

Bacani and Matoto vs. Nat’l. Coconut Corp., et al.

100 Phil 471 FACTS: Plaintiffs are a court stenographer assigned in Branch VI of the Court of First Instance of Manila. During the pendency of Civil Case No. 2293 (Francisco Sycip vs. National Coconut Corporation) the counsel for defendant requested to the stenographers for copies of the transcript of the stenographic notes taken by them during the hearing. Plaintiffs complied with the request by delivering to Counsel Alikpala the needed transcript containing 714 pages and thereafter submitted to him their bills for the payment of their fees. The National Coconut Corporation paid the amount of P564 to Leopoldo T. Bacani and P150 to Mateo A. Matoto for said transcript at the rate of P1 per page. The Auditor General disallowed the payment of these fees and sought the recovery of the amounts paid. On January 19, 1953, the Auditor General required the Plaintiffs to reimburse the paid amount. The Department of Justice expressed its opinion that the National Coconut Corporation, being a government entity, was exempt from the payment of the fees. (Section 8, Rule 130, stenography may only charge as fees P0.03 for each page of transcript of not less than 200 words before the appeal is taken and P0.15 for each page after the filing of the appeal) The party has agreed and in fact has paid P1 per page for the services rendered by the stenographers and has not raised any objection to the amount paid until its propriety was disputed by the Auditor General. On February 6, 1954, the Auditor General issued an order directing the Cashier of the Department of Justice to deduct from the salary of Leopoldo T. Bacani the amount of P25 every payday and from the salary of Mateo A. Matoto the amount of P10 every payday beginning March 30, 1954. To prevent deduction of these fees from their salaries and secure a judicial ruling that the National Coconut Corporation is not a government entity within the purview of section 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, this action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila. ISSUE: 1. Whether or not National Coconut Corporation is a government entity or included in the term “Government of the Republic of the Philippines”.

without pronouncement as to costs because the case does not come under section 1. Whether or not corporations that perform certain functions of government make them a part of the Government of the Philippines. . These are called municipal corporations. they do not come under the classification of municipal or public corporation. Rule 130. 3. Rule 45 of the Rules of Court relative to appeals from a decision of the Auditor General (deducting from Plaintiffs’ salaries the amount paid to them as stenographers’). Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.15 for each page after the filing of the appeal. duties and liabilities have to be determined in the light of that law and of their corporate charters.00 per page for the services rendered by the Plaintiffs and has not raised any objection to the amount paid until its propriety was disputed by the Auditor General. under section 8. municipal or other form of local government. stenographers may only charge as fees P0. They do not therefore come within the exemption clause prescribed in section 16. but in this case the National Coconut Corporation. both parties has agreed on P1. No. No. HELD: 1. Their powers.2. “Government of the Republic of the Philippines” used in section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code refers only to that government entity through which the functions of the government are exercised as an attribute of sovereignty. 2. The decision of the Court appealed from is affirmed. No.30 for each page of transcript of not less than 200 words before the appeal is taken and P0. Whether or not the plaintiffs are liable for salary deduction for the amount paid to them as stenographers. and in this are included those arms through which political authority is made effective whether they be provincial. They do not include government entities which are given a corporate personality separate and distinct from the government and which are governed by the Corporation Law. “The mere fact that the Government happens to be a majority stockholder does not make it a public corporation” 3. The payment of the fees in question became therefore contractual and as such is valid even if it goes beyond the limit prescribed in section 8. Rule 130 of our Rules of Court.